Jump to content

Board of Trustees Election / BTN Revenue


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Just a general comment. I know people lift information all the time and put it out as their own but it's funny to see where items we've discussed on here Monday night and Tuesday morning make it's way to other sites podcasts as new information out this morning. Not going to link another site or another person but one of the reasons I love this board so much is the content. Yes..we derail threads but the meat of this board is second to none. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rico said:

How do "we" fix it?

I think @13th&Jackson deserves the Nobel Prize if he could answer that!

You didn't ask me, but I think this is a start: More people are going to college and that is great because our economy is shifting (has shifted). I think, as a result of supply and demand tuition has gone up. If that's the case the demand needs to be lowered. How do you do that? 

-Do a better job of promoting of jobs that don't require college. Ones that may require some sort of trade school or apprenticeships. It seems that there's a stigma attached to not going to college - that you aren't intelligent. This is not the case at all, college isn't meant for everybody and their are a lot of good well-paying jobs out there that don't require a 4-year college education. Somehow that stigma needs to be removed. 

-Don't require meaningless classes. This is said from the guy who thrived in History of Rock and Roll. Why are we paying for classes that will not help us in our future professions - and why are they required? 

-Hit the private and public sector in their job requirements. Why do I know so many teachers who have their master's degree. I'm not degrading teaching one bit, but in order to be competitive for opening teachers are getting master's degrees. When did it become that 4 years isn't enough? If it's not enough then see point #2 and stop making students waste their undergraduate degree with stupid electives. 

-There's gotta be a clamp down of some sort in degrees that don't produce jobs. I love the arts, but I think those talents need to pursue other means to fine their craft. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tdhoosier said:

I think @13th&Jackson deserves the Nobel Prize if he could answer that!

You didn't ask me, but I think this is a start: More people are going to college and that is great because our economy is shifting (has shifted). I think, as a result of supply and demand tuition has gone up. If that's the case the demand needs to be lowered. How do you do that? 

-Do a better job of promoting of jobs that don't require college. One's that may require some sort of trade school or apprenticeships. It seems that there's a stigma attached to not going to college - that you aren't intelligent. This is not the case at all, college isn't meant for everybody and their are a lot of good well-paying jobs out there that don't require a 4-year college education. Somehow that stigma needs to be removed. 

-Don't require meaningless classes. This is said from the guy who thrived in History of Rock and Roll. Why are we paying for classes that will not help us in our future professions - and why are they required? 

-Hit the private and public sector in their job requirements. Why do I know so many teachers who have their master's degree. I'm not degrading teaching one bit, but in order to be competitive for opening teachers are getting master's degrees. When did it become that 4 years isn't enough? It it's not enough then see point #2 and stop making students waste their undergraduate degree with stupid electives. 

-There's gotta be a clamp down of some sort in degrees that don't produce jobs. I love the arts, but I think those talents need to pursue other means to fine their craft. 

 

 

 

Increase scarcity. 

Limits on total number of students admitted, and within each major.  One University does not need to graduate 500 students with English Lit majors every year.  Reasons being: A) There's not that many jobs that require a degree in English Lit, and those that do exist are not physically intensive (meaning there's no attrition/heavy turnaround; people stay in those jobs until/past retirement) and B) It keeps students from just "being in school to get any degree".  Can't decide on a major, but have all your prerequisites done? Drop out until you do.  Don't just keep going towards a meaningless degree just to "stay in school". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, tdhoosier said:

 

-There's gotta be a clamp down of some sort in degrees that don't produce jobs. I love the arts, but I think those talents need to pursue other means to fine their craft. 

 

 

 

This is my opinion to a T. There are other ways for people to "express themselves" and take part in those activities/areas rather than racking up six figures in student debt. And then adding insult to injury when they have to wait tables or bartend afterwards because they can't find a job in their field of study. I have a hard time feeling bad for those who willingly sign up for this but also shame on the universities for pushing expensive degrees with little to no ROI. That's not intelligent in any sense of the word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, hoosier8760 said:

This is my opinion to a T. There are other ways for people to "express themselves" and take part in those activities/areas rather than racking up six figures in student debt. And then adding insult to injury when they have to wait tables or bartend afterwards because they can't find a job in their field of study. I have a hard time feeling bad for those who willingly sign up for this but also shame on the universities for pushing expensive degrees with little to no ROI. That's not intelligent in any sense of the word.

Part of this is the whole "Do what you enjoy doing" idea that gets pushed onto kids.  I'm all for people pursuing jobs that they're passionate about.  But they need to append "....but don't expect that it'll always work out" to that statement. 

It's ok to have a job you maybe only moderately enjoy/tolerate.  If you're not out pursuing that crazy passionate idea 24/7, it doesn't make you a failure.  It makes you normal.  It's also ok to differentiate between a hobby and a career.  There are several things I enjoy doing on a personal level that I would never consider doing for a career.  If you have some artistic talent, it's ok to just pursue art in your free time and work as an accountant.  You're not betraying anything.  Would you rather be able to make a living as an artist vs something else? Sure.  But, guess what....that's life.  There's a limit on the number of any type of career that's needed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Zlinedavid said:

Part of this is the whole "Do what you enjoy doing" idea that gets pushed onto kids.  I'm all for people pursuing jobs that they're passionate about.  But they need to append "....but don't expect that it'll always work out" to that statement. 

It's ok to have a job you maybe only moderately enjoy/tolerate.  If you're not out pursuing that crazy passionate idea 24/7, it doesn't make you a failure.  It makes you normal.  It's also ok to differentiate between a hobby and a career.  There are several things I enjoy doing on a personal level that I would never consider doing for a career.  If you have some artistic talent, it's ok to just pursue art in your free time and work as an accountant.  You're not betraying anything.  Would you rather be able to make a living as an artist vs something else? Sure.  But, guess what....that's life.  There's a limit on the number of any type of career that's needed. 

It's definitely a grey area. Let's say you like art - there may not be many jobs in free lance sculpting, but there are many jobs in graphic arts that require education in software, knowledge in branding and marketing, etc. (they don't necessarily need to pursue a life that's completely opposite from their passion) Art departments do not need to be completely eliminated, but they should hone in on skills that are transferable to the real world. Not only will this decrease enrollment it will greatly reduce administrative costs. That's code for killing jobs, how else do you cut a $3.1 billion budget? Eliminate professors who teach obscure material that will only prepare their students to have a career in teaching the same obscure material. I'm not saying completely eliminate something like Philosophy, but maybe have a handful of Universities specialize in that curriculum. Not every school needs to have a Philosophy department. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not studied the defects in the higher education cost structure, but I think student loans have been misused by the universities and colleges.  The idea is noble, which is to give students access to college. The schools saw it as an opportunity to have access to cash from people who might not otherwise have it.  

Schools have gotten away from their primary mission, which is to educate Americans.  Education has been a big factor in the excellence of America.  Right now, you look at higher education and the schools are fat hogs at the buffet of cash like a pig at a trough.  There are layers and layers of administrative people and bureaucracy just spinning their wheels and churning like hamsters on a wheel in a cage.  Unlike corporations, they don't answer to stockholders.

The legislatures should hold their feet to the fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BobSaccamanno said:

I have not studied the defects in the higher education cost structure, but I think student loans have been misused by the universities and colleges.  The idea is noble, which is to give students access to college. The schools saw it as an opportunity to have access to cash from people who might not otherwise have it.  

Schools have gotten away from their primary mission, which is to educate Americans.  Education has been a big factor in the excellence of America.  Right now, you look at higher education and the schools are fat hogs at the buffet of cash like a pig at a trough.  There are layers and layers of administrative people and bureaucracy just spinning their wheels and churning like hamsters on a wheel in a cage.  Unlike corporations, they don't answer to stockholders.

The legislatures should hold their feet to the fire.

This is my take.  What needs to happen is restriction to the supply of student loans.  Student loans have allowed universities to become bloated versus having to live lean due to uncertainty.  Student loans became a certainty they can count on, so they spend more because of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know the answer because I am not trained in this area.  You are describing the starve the beast mentality.  Maybe that would work.  However, I would not like to see kids denied the opportunity to get educated w/o access to means to pay.

When politicians talk about free education, they are talking about the symptom, not the disease itself, IMO.  Cost controls are needed, but so is an evolving education system that does a better job positioning our young people for an adapting world.  If we address the cost structure and the quality of the education, those would be far more important --essentially scandalous--- issues to resolve.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, tdhoosier said:

It's definitely a grey area. Let's say you like art - there may not be many jobs in free lance sculpting, but there are many jobs in graphic arts that require education in software, knowledge in branding and marketing, etc. (they don't necessarily need to pursue a life that's completely opposite from their passion) Art departments do not need to be completely eliminated, but they should hone in on skills that are transferable to the real world. Not only will this decrease enrollment it will greatly reduce administrative costs. That's code for killing jobs, how else do you cut a $3.1 billion budget? Eliminate professors who teach obscure material that will only prepare their students to have a career in teaching the same obscure material. I'm not saying completely eliminate something like Philosophy, but maybe have a handful of Universities specialize in that curriculum. Not every school needs to have a Philosophy department. 

On the first part: hit the nail on the head. 

2nd part: Or, instead of having entire departments, universities could pare them down to a handful of professors in that area, offering basic and mid-level courses as part of other concentrations.  I do think there is value in getting exposed to a spectrum of topics not related to one's major.  Hell, I enjoyed the philosophy classes I took, and some of that information has come in useful on a few occasions.  But, I could never put an entire degree in philosophy to use, nor would I want to.  Does every student need to understand advanced grammatical structures? No, but every student should be able to write a coherent paper.  So employ 2-3 English professors, rather than an entire department.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to thank Mike from the TDH for posting this election.  I hope we can do this each time there is an election.  For the members and lurkers out there, I hope anyone reading this gives very strong consideration to Mr Davidson and not Ms. Bishop.  I am a long time poster here and have no pre-conceived bias or dog in this fight. As mentioned above, TDH spoon feeds you on how to vote and it only takes about a minute.

If you look at the bios, to me the decision is obvious.  Her bio is very telling.  Without realizing it, she demonstrates how lost and out of touch she is.  She thinks like establishment, or an elitist.  But, her resume is exceptionally mediocre for such a big job.  The board as a whole needs disruptors who can think more strategically to give IU an edge.  Right now, getting on the board is some combination of political connections and work on donations.  That is not what the focus of the BOT should be and attributes of what we are looking for.   We need strategic thinkers, e.g., people who can think outside the box and come up with real solutions to give IU a competitive edge.   

It's not just Bishop.  There needs to be considerable turnover in the BOT, from Pat Shoulders on down.  They ought to implement term limits.  We have guys that just camp out in the position and just go with the flow.

We literally have mold in our dorm rooms.  That's not just a little embarrassing.  People get sick.  If I am a tuition paying parent - whether it be from Tipton, or Chicago, or Manhattan -- why on earth would I send my kid to a school that ineptly allowed this to happen?

I have actually served on a Board and been a corporate secretary where I work, where I am a partner.  I know what a Board should be doing.  Her pitch exemplifies what a board should not be doing.  As I said, we need disruption, tactical thinking, strategic planning.  Not, "here are some tasks and needs and some fund raising goals."  Blah blah blah with all that.  That's pedestrian and a poor board.

Regarding McRobbie, he brought up informatics and some building churning.  But he is incapable of multi-tasking or walking and chewing gum at the same time.  He has gotten mired in useless re-structures of admin people, again without focusing on strategic planning for a behemoth like IU with its $3 MM budget.  I am happy to hear there is some remodeling of dorms, but it's too late and a dollar short.  We should be focused on the student experience first and foremost.  Mold in the dorms is a fireable offense.  Wasting time on reorganizing what department some admin people report to is not the best use of his or his staff's time.  They are afraid of a coach with elite stature yet hypocritically run scared and get intimidated by professors who talk loudly and carry a big stick.  That's poor leadership.  Rankings are not doing great.  The law school --ranked 24 recently-- has plummeted to 34.  That's a significant drop.  Instead of re-arranging admin, and causing quality people to leave or be re-assigned  en masse, more energy needs to go to improving the student experience, disrupting the educational curricula, and reducing needless admin or bureaucratic expense such that tuitions can stabilize.  The Board of Directors where I served would go ballistic over his administrative wheel spinning, loss of good people, or running scared from excessively loud professors (which is quite ironic given their position on coaches), etc.  The emphasis would be on much more strategic planning.  Read their minutes.  They just go through an overly simplistic agenda of things they need to address without the proper emphasis on how to improve vis a vis our competition.

Regarding the lack of support for the athletic programs, it's naive and overly simplistic to make the simple declaration that athletic money (B1G network) money should be siphoned off for McRobbie's vanity cap ex projects.  I was at IU in the 1980s. My dorm floor was full of out of state people - often from well to do families from NYC, Chicago, and California.  IU has good departments from business to SPEA to music to liberal arts to science.  So does our competition.  Yet, at that time, we were in our heyday as a basketball power, and many out of state kids can take a closer look at IU if the school comes to their attention via basketball as I know first hand from my classmates.  I was told that kids from, e.g., New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, at that time weren't excited about the large state schools in the area, so they spilled into North Carolina, Michigan, Indiana, etc.  It's essentially advertising.  IU gets on your mind, you look at the department, and you're excited about the school.  It also energizes alumni who can donate more.  It amazes me that upper management is so lost on this.  In contradistinction, Davidson says he gets it.

Michigan, Ohio State, and a host of others can walk and chew gum at the same time.  While McRobbie --a native of Tasmania-- is content to ignore sports and just hope they don't embarrass the school, UM and OSU can enhance academics and athletics at the same time.  McRobbie could use mentoring from my Dad.  When I was 20, I would complain about having so many balls in the air.  My dad would have none of it.  Walk and chew gum.  Grow up.  Mitch Daniels is such a superior figure that it's not even worth discussing.

Hopefully McRobbie will make it easier and elect to not come back.  I'd like to see Pat Shoulders and other lifers on the Board make way for strategic thinkers.  The job has proven to be too big for McRobbie and the BOT.

Mr. Davidson, with his entrepreneurial spirit, would be a massive upgrade in terms of the profile we need.  As I stated earlier, I do not know him personally or otherwise in any way or shape (I've never communicated with him or anyone associated with him) or have no stake in him getting elected.  I am a long time poster (which everyone who posts here knows) who is not showing up here like a flash out of the blue to promote my buddy.

Sorry this is so long, but I hope the alumni out there vote (it's embarrassingly easy) and that we get much of our existing BOT, as well as the President, out.  "Mold in the dorms."  Seriously.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, BobSaccamanno said:

I want to thank Mike from the TDH for posting this election.  I hope we can do this each time there is an election. 

Regardless of the issues being debated at the time or whether athletics are involved.  This is the first time I've ever even known trustee elections were happening, let alone voted in one.  Given how many of TDH's readers/HSN's users are probably alumni, it's a great way to spread the word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Zlinedavid said:

Regardless of the issues being debated at the time or whether athletics are involved.  This is the first time I've ever even known trustee elections were happening, let alone voted in one.  Given how many of TDH's readers/HSN's users are probably alumni, it's a great way to spread the word.

I've always voted but this is the first time I had my 7 family members vote as well. All I did was send the article about McRobbie or IU using Athletic Department funds and they voted right away. I like to think our fans are pretty informed. On this issue though ($ being diverted) not one was aware. Glad the word is finally getting out.

Been complaining about this since the end of the Lynch days. In 2010 when it was $66 M for the whole conference I didn't pay attention. Now it's $50M per team per year and growing.....those numbers should be dissected each and every year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voted yesterday. 

It’s embarrassing how superior Purdue’s leadership has been under Mitch. There’s been whining from some faculty there, but Mitch has largely ignored them and proceeded to dramatically improve that university. The purchase of Kaplan’s online infrastructure for almost nothing to create Purdue Global was brilliant. IU’s leadership has no vision. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, NotIThatLives said:

Is it time for Moldy McRobbie to go?

He is leaving after 2021.  IU extended him through the bicentennial but after that he is out. That’s why the vote is important, this group of Trustees will be bringing in the next president to lease IU.

Great discussion here on all this stuff, much appreciated.

I would also like to throw out this question:  Are IU and schools like it really public institutions besides in name only?  IU gets like 10-15% funds from the state, the majority of IUs funding comes from tuition and the endowment.  Schools like the Kelley school have considered privatizing and charging a premium for what they consider to be an IU degree that is worth more than the current cost of entry for an IU degree.  I think the whole idea of any institution being a public institution may die off in the coming years as enrollments drop.

For those of you that are not aware in the next five years there is going to be a huge drop in college enrollments.  Post 9-11 people stopped having kids at the pace they were having them.  As stated previously I see many small schools collapsing as they will not be prepared for this drop off and cost of entry will be a vital contributor to universities students select.  Also something to keep in mind, many schools including IU are pushing online attendance, and that is the real growth area for IU in the next few years.  Almost 1/3 of every IU student has taken an online course and that number continues to rise.  All food for thought as we hit this enrollment cliff in the coming years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, iuthruandthru said:

He is leaving after 2021.  IU extended him through the bicentennial but after that he is out. That’s why the vote is important, this group of Trustees will be bringing in the next president to lease IU.

Great discussion here on all this stuff, much appreciated.

I would also like to throw out this question:  Are IU and schools like it really public institutions besides in name only?  IU gets like 10-15% funds from the state, the majority of IUs funding comes from tuition and the endowment.  Schools like the Kelley school have considered privatizing and charging a premium for what they consider to be an IU degree that is worth more than the current cost of entry for an IU degree.  I think the whole idea of any institution being a public institution may die off in the coming years as enrollments drop.

For those of you that are not aware in the next five years there is going to be a huge drop in college enrollments.  Post 9-11 people stopped having kids at the pace they were having them.  As stated previously I see many small schools collapsing as they will not be prepared for this drop off and cost of entry will be a vital contributor to universities students select.  Also something to keep in mind, many schools including IU are pushing online attendance, and that is the real growth area for IU in the next few years.  Almost 1/3 of every IU student has taken an online course and that number continues to rise.  All food for thought as we hit this enrollment cliff in the coming years.

The decline in US students has already started but has been masked by surging international students. That’s how Purdue has been able to freeze tuition for years. However, that’s at risk now. Just saw that U of Illinois is bracing for fallout of China tensions. They have 5,700 Chinese students. 

As far as publics becoming private, Michigan and Virginia have been mentioned as possible. They’re included among  the “public Ivies”. A lot of upside to being private and little downside. 

Online is the growth area. Arizona State advertises its online program in the Midwest 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/4/2019 at 9:24 AM, HoosierDom said:

What do you suggest we spend the BTN money on instead?

Is lack of money holding the basketball program back? If so, I'm all for giving them more of that money, but I'm not aware of anything we're lacking. I'm not necessarily opposed to spending more on football, but, again, I would want some sort of explanation of what we lack and how the money would make us a better team. Other sports should have safe, functioning equipment, they should have competent coaches and they should have medical support - other than that I don't see why every cent of BTN money shouldn't be funneled into providing an actual education to the students of IU. 

I agree that endowments are criminally under utilized, but that seems to be a separate issue.  

It is often stated that even PU has better football practice facilities than IU. Dorms are sub-standard vs. much of the competition. I’m too lazy to look back but recall reading that Archie was a bit suprised that we did not have money for x,y,z (I realize I am giving a poor example) things that he could do at Dayton, we have trouble getting some of the teams we would prefer to play at The Hall because our payout is so poor, etc.  In October Michigan, as an example, released their public record athletic budget and all 51mm they received from the BT (the per school payout had a huge jump in 2018 due to a new tv contract) is part of the athletic budget. It is interesting that they earn HUGE football money yet also keep all the BT network money in the athletic department. I wouldn’t think they were more in need of athletic upgrades than IU but I don’t know for sure.

That being said,,,,,I don’t favor the athletic department being able to spend every penny “no matter what” and agree with your premise that the spending should be justified/necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 13th&Jackson said:

Voted yesterday. 

It’s embarrassing how superior Purdue’s leadership has been under Mitch. There’s been whining from some faculty there, but Mitch has largely ignored them and proceeded to dramatically improve that university. The purchase of Kaplan’s online infrastructure for almost nothing to create Purdue Global was brilliant. IU’s leadership has no vision. 

If college faculty/administrators are whining, you know they’re doing something right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back in 2018, Indiana University spent $130,000 on state of the art safety helmets for 100 of our football players.  However, since that was all that Mr. Glass was allocated to spend. The decision was made to just change decals for different games/uniforms.  Also not sure, but taking names off of the uniforms back then causes me to think it was more of a financial decision, than a team thing.  Since, I believe names are coming back.  However, think how many more helmets could have been purchased with more funds allocated from the Big Ten channel's piece of the pie.  We all recall, before then, when IU has a full complement of FB helmets.  Including Chrome ones that looked great at night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 13th&Jackson said:

Voted yesterday. 

It’s embarrassing how superior Purdue’s leadership has been under Mitch. There’s been whining from some faculty there, but Mitch has largely ignored them and proceeded to dramatically improve that university. The purchase of Kaplan’s online infrastructure for almost nothing to create Purdue Global was brilliant. IU’s leadership has no vision. 

This statement is off base IMO.  Purdue global is a shill of an online degree program.  Instead of developing a curriculum that meets the standards of their university academically they instead took the easy route and bought a company with all their courses and degrees already built in.  What value does a Purdue global student get when they get a degree that literally was just slapped with the Purdue name on it?  Instead of taking a thoughtful approach and making sure faculty that are subject matter experts deliver a course that can equal the knowledge that is expected of their degree?  ASU is the online leader because they developed their online program with the latter approach.  Kelley Direct at IU and UNC in online MBA have done this as well.  Mitch has opted for the corporate quick fix.  What I don’t know and for Purdue alumni sake hopefully they are taking a long term approach to getting those online programs to meet an academic standard one would expect from Purdue.  Otherwise that degree loses value daily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...