More new dorms

[SDSUAlum08]

Re: More new dorms

I posted this awhile ago, on this thread

This helped a lot. Thanks LakeJack!

[witness]

Re: More new dorms

I would like to know how much money is going into these dorms and yes how much they are getting from them as week for students staying in the dorms. If a pretty good chunk is going into the dorms and not enough into athletics than I blamed the dumb rule of having students being forced to live in the dorms for 2 years. There are plenty of schools that only make you stay for 1 year and if they only made you stay for one year, they wouldn't have to build more and more dorms

[SDSUAlum08]

Re: More new dorms

I would like to know how much money is going into these dorms and yes how much they are getting from them as week for students staying in the dorms. If a pretty good chunk is going into the dorms and not enough into athletics than I blamed the dumb rule of having students being forced to live in the dorms for 2 years. There are plenty of schools that only make you stay for 1 year and if they only made you stay for one year, they wouldn't have to build more and more dorms

Not this.

[bigticket1]

Re: More new dorms

I would like to know how much money is going into these dorms and yes how much they are getting from them as week for students staying in the dorms. If a pretty good chunk is going into the dorms and not enough into athletics than I blamed the dumb rule of having students being forced to live in the dorms for 2 years. There are plenty of schools that only make you stay for 1 year and if they only made you stay for one year, they wouldn't have to build more and more dorms

Is there enough off campus housing available to handle 2500 plus more students ?

[witness]

Re: More new dorms

Is there enough off campus housing available to handle 2500 plus more students ?

Could not tell you but why not make nice on-campus apartments for 2nd year students and above. I think apartments are better than dorms and the rule of having to live in dorms for 2 years in kind of ridiculous in fact many people can get out pretty easily so why not do away with the 2nd year. Sure dorms were nice when I was in there, but I met most people at parties not the dorms. Personally I think they do it to squeeze more money out of students but it's whatever I guess.

[JackJD]

Re: More new dorms

I would like to know how much money is going into these dorms and yes how much they are getting from them as week for students staying in the dorms. If a pretty good chunk is going into the dorms and not enough into athletics than I blamed the dumb rule of having students being forced to live in the dorms for 2 years. There are plenty of schools that only make you stay for 1 year and if they only made you stay for one year, they wouldn't have to build more and more dorms

Do you know how dorms are financed? If you do, then explain how that is connected with spending on athletics.

The new dorms will provide more choices including price choices for campus living.

On the rule about students living in dorms...statistics show (not just at SDSU but elsewhere) there is a firm connection between having success as a student and living on campus -- at least in the first couple of years. Additionally, there is considerable demand at SDSU for on-campus housing.

[witness]

Re: More new dorms

Do you know how dorms are financed? If you do, then explain how that is connected with spending on athletics.

The new dorms will provide more choices including price choices for campus living.

On the rule about students living in dorms...statistics show (not just at SDSU but elsewhere) there is a firm connection between having success as a student and living on campus -- at least in the first couple of years. Additionally, there is considerable demand at SDSU for on-campus housing.

I asked if anyone knew how it was funded so I could ask and see if it could be used for athletics instead. I was curious on how they got the money. I did some research and all I could find was bonds and other financing, not to mention the students paying for the new dorms to help pay for the costs which including the current Jackrabbit village cost 45.75 million. My main thing I guess, is all I hear about is there is not enough space, there is not enough space, but yet they build dorms because they keep students on campus for 2 years. Sure, there are studies that say that it is better for living on campus, but really it's about 6,000 a year(depending on the dorm or meal plan)per student that they would lose if they didn't make students stay on campus for 2 years. You do the math and tell me its all about the studies.

[filbert]

Re: More new dorms

Could not tell you but why not make nice on-campus apartments for 2nd year students and above. I think apartments are better than dorms and the rule of having to live in dorms for 2 years in kind of ridiculous in fact many people can get out pretty easily so why not do away with the 2nd year. Sure dorms were nice when I was in there, but I met most people at parties not the dorms. Personally I think they do it to squeeze more money out of students but it's whatever I guess.

I believe the plan is to focus the southeast campus housing complex for 1st-2nd year students, and focus the northwest campus housing complex for upper-class/graduate students.

This document:
http://www.sdstate.edu/campus/housin...an-3-29-11.pdf
will give you some idea as to what the SDSU administration is trying to do, and may contain some of the answers you seek.

The basic theory of requiring underclassmen to reside on campus is that living on campus will give them more time to focus on success at the collegiate level than they would have if they had to spend time commuting/parking/etc, and that being residential students generally better integrates the underclassmen into the university community than would be the case if they were commuters. The overall goal is increasing student retention, especially for underclassmen.

If you want a good idea in general where the campus is going, review all the planning documents on this page:
http://www.sdstate.edu/president/facilities/index.cfm

[89rabbit]

Re: More new dorms

I asked if anyone knew how it was funded so I could ask and see if it could be used for athletics instead. I was curious on how they got the money. I did some research and all I could find was bonds and other financing, not to mention the students paying for the new dorms to help pay for the costs which including the current Jackrabbit village cost 45.75 million. My main thing I guess, is all I hear about is there is not enough space, there is not enough space, but yet they build dorms because they keep students on campus for 2 years. Sure, there are studies that say that it is better for living on campus, but really it's about 6,000 a year(depending on the dorm or meal plan)per student that they would lose if they didn't make students stay on campus for 2 years. You do the math and tell me its all about the studies.

You are wrong. The requirement to stay on campus has to do with student success. Jack JD is correct that SDSU has stats that are backed up nationally that show that students who live on campus their first two years do much better and graduate at a higher rate then those who only live one year on campus.

When you have a chance read this it will provide a starting point for you.

http://www.sdstate.edu/academic/student/upload/Student-Success-Model.pdf

You are correct that the residence halls are financed by bonds that means that SDSU borrows the money to build them and pays the money back with the rents that the students pay to live in the residence halls. So no, SDSU can not borrow money to build residence halls and give that money to athletics because the residence halls that are constructed are the revenue stream to repay the bonds.

More reading to help your education:

http://www.sdstate.edu/campus/housingdining/upload/Residential-Life-Dining-Services-Master-Plan-3-29-11.pdf


SDSU is a very transparent place. The University seeks input from many sorces and publish the results of the findings that go into the decisions that are made. Visit the University's web site and type in a few key words and you will find tons of information

http://www.sdstate.edu/

Go State!

[witness]

Re: More new dorms

89rabbit-Yes I realize that they can't spend more money on athletics, but my main thing is space. All I hear is there is not enough space, and the main reason behind not enough space is making students stay two years. I know SDSU is backing the studies and everything, but in reality money is the main factor in about everything we do anymore, and I'll quote some Machine Gun Kelly, "This country's flag is a joke, That should be painted green." Also there is 15mil+ staring them in the face so it is a win-win for SDSU. They can use the studies to back their claims and they get 15mil+ in the process. The bonds they are using are play money, since the students are paying for the dorms and it won't affect the university at all. I guess it wouldn't be that big of deal if there was more space on campus but there isn't, and there are always more motivating factors behind studies nowadays especially in colleges. And no, I didn't live in the dorms last year, I have always felt it was a dumb rule

[MontanaRabbit]

Re: More new dorms

89rabbit-Yes I realize that they can't spend more money on athletics, but my main thing is space. All I hear is there is not enough space, and the main reason behind not enough space is making students stay two years. I know SDSU is backing the studies and everything, but in reality money is the main factor in about everything we do anymore, and I'll quote some Machine Gun Kelly, "This country's flag is a joke, That should be painted green." Also there is 15mil+ staring them in the face so it is a win-win for SDSU. They can use the studies to back their claims and they get 15mil+ in the process. The bonds they are using are play money, since the students are paying for the dorms and it won't affect the university at all. I guess it wouldn't be that big of deal if there was more space on campus but there isn't, and there are always more motivating factors behind studies nowadays especially in colleges. And no, I didn't live in the dorms last year, I have always felt it was a dumb rule

SDSU's mission is to educate. If keeping kids on campus for two years increases the graduation rate then that helps SDSU complete their mission.

SDSU has quite a bit of space for expansion.....think north and east.

[jackmd]

Re: More new dorms

SDSU's mission is to educate. If keeping kids on campus for two years increases the graduation rate then that helps SDSU complete their mission.

SDSU has quite a bit of space for expansion.....think north and east.

This. More dorms are a good idea. Staying on campus for at least 1 year, probably 2 is good idea.

[adminhare]

Re: More new dorms

...Also there is 15mil+ staring them in the face so it is a win-win for SDSU. They can use the studies to back their claims and they get 15mil+ in the process. The bonds they are using are play money, since the students are paying for the dorms and it won't affect the university at all. I guess it wouldn't be that big of deal if there was more space on campus but there isn't, and there are always more motivating factors behind studies nowadays especially in colleges. And no, I didn't live in the dorms last year, I have always felt it was a dumb rule

I guess we should just shut the place down. But before we do, can you explain more about the "15mil+" staring "them" in the face? Who's getting that money? It seems you're trying to make the point that SDSU is somehow making a profit. Oh, and lets just trash studies generally -- darned bogus studies just used to "back their claims" (suggesting there's no evidence?).

Bonds are just play money? Don't let the purchasers of bonds in on your discovery! And no matter what, don't tell those who benefit from various projects constructed through the use of bonds that it's "play money".

Witness, you have convinced me of one thing: no matter what anyone writes in response to your ill- or un-informed statements, you will reject it out-of-hand. Therefore, the only way you can obtain answers that you will at least consider, is if you look up the information yourself and take the time to try and understand the information. Of course, if you continually reject the information to begin with, then there is little hope that you will learn much and in that case, I am confident I will someday see you elected to Congress.



oops, just noted that I was signed on as adminhare....this post is from JackJD

[filbert]

Re: More new dorms

I guess we should just shut the place down. But before we do, can you explain more about the "15mil+" staring "them" in the face? Who's getting that money? It seems you're trying to make the point that SDSU is somehow making a profit. Oh, and lets just trash studies generally -- darned bogus studies just used to "back their claims" (suggesting there's no evidence?).

Bonds are just play money? Don't let the purchasers of bonds in on your discovery! And no matter what, don't tell those who benefit from various projects constructed through the use of bonds that it's "play money".

Witness, you have convinced me of one thing: no matter what anyone writes in response to your ill- or un-informed statements, you will reject it out-of-hand. Therefore, the only way you can obtain answers that you will at least consider, is if you look up the information yourself and take the time to try and understand the information. Of course, if you continually reject the information to begin with, then there is little hope that you will learn much and in that case, I am confident I will someday see you elected to Congress.



oops, just noted that I was signed on as adminhare....this post is from JackJD

Very weird. I wrote, and then decided not to post a post that made the exact same points you made in paragraphs 2 and 3, JackJD--down to speculating on the reaction of the bond purchasers to the revelation that bonds they bought were just "play money." Of course, I managed to avoid posting my own overly snarky, exasperated comment . . . untli now, that is . . .

[LakeJack]

Re: More new dorms

You guys are being too hard on witness. Sure SDSU has studies, but come on witness has a quote from either a tatted up rapper or a 1930's era criminal to back up his position - since I wouldn't consider either a credible source I didn't bother to check.