Future Campus Framework Discussion

[Killdozer]

So, can I ask a stupid question.....is the Dome going to be renovated at all? I invest a lot of my time with season football tickets by driving 11 hrs one way for home games. If I am going to continually sit in a half empty, aging facility I need to ask myself if it is really worth my investment.

 

[SUFaninNJ]

So they interviewed professors of history, geography and religion who seem not to understand economics and how the money brought in by athletics is funneled back into the university. OK.

Too bad Dr. Bennett isn't still teaching. That's one history professor who understands the importance of athletics and the Dome.

 

[shandeezy7]

Three things in life that can be counted on: death, taxes and professors complaining that they don't make enough money.

 

[OttoMets]

Disagree (big surprise) with all of your take on the article. It's clear that Phil Arnold and the others are concerned that, with a finite pot of money, athletics and athletics infrastructure spending is necessarily occurring at the expense of other areas (here, payroll). There's no indication that anyone's opposed to athletics spending, just that a) everyone should be mindful of the administration's priorities and b) athletics is a dangerous beast whose potential power ought to be checked.

If SU's really so poor (as is suggested publicly) that they have to buy out staff, perhaps they're too poor to afford a Dome renovation right now. That's probably not the case, but it's a stance worth challenging. None of us wants to see the school move in the direction Rutgers did.

 

[NJCuse97]

As I mentioned, I see some validity in the arguments, especially those of the mission. That said, if funds are down as is also expressed, putting aside the expense and potential return of an investment into athletics (the Dome), the things that will bring in additional funds are pretty simple. higher enrollment, research grants, and higher tuition. The school has pretty high tuition as is. I don't think a dramatic improvement in the educator's salary will result in a school ranking improvement that would justify a substantial tuition increase. As for increased enrollment, for one Nancy tried this and we watched the academic rankings drop as a result. Two, increased enrollment means increased facilities, like dorms and classrooms. Neither do much to increase value, but of the two, I would put dorms ahead of classrooms. In that is this; quality over quantity.

Lastly is where I agree most with potential funnelling of funds to places other than athletics. Research grants. With these come not only better faculty, but also better academic ranking, and potential patent rights. This is where the real money is and this is why the BigTen and many ACC schools strive for AAU membership (this is granted in large part based on research spending), and it is of little consequence that there are a lot of Ivy's in the AAU as well. That said, again the school needs infrastructure investment to do this, more so than faculty pay raises. There are not many research facilities or programs on campus compared to our aspirant peer institutions. With the cost of college falling under tremendous scrutiny these days, prospective students are looking at career choices that will lead to lucrative job prospects upon graduation. That isn't library or religious studies, or history degrees these days; it is engineering and science degrees, and entrepreneur programs.

As a means to staving this off (fake it till you make it) until we can get the research programs in place, (which is a major tenet of the new academic plan) we are engaging in campus beautification and improving student life projects that are an effort to justify high tuition and draw a higher caliber applicant. It is also in making sure our image is comparable to our peer institutes (Duke, BC, UNC, and ND among others are some of the most beautiful campuses in the country). $50 million for the Arch is not an athletic investment, it is a student life investment.

As everyone else here has said, the investment into athletics is not only a revenue generator, but a major marketing tool. Do you think a school like UNC would risk their academic reputation without there being a justified reward? I think conversations to the economic well being of the CNY region are VERY important, but carry less weight in this discussion.

 

[sutomcat]

Disagree (big surprise) with all of your take on the article. It's clear that Phil Arnold and the others are concerned that, with a finite pot of money, athletics and athletics infrastructure spending is necessarily occurring at the expense of other areas (here, payroll). There's no indication that anyone's opposed to athletics spending, just that a) everyone should be mindful of the administration's priorities and b) athletics is a dangerous beast whose potential power ought to be checked.

If SU's really so poor (as is suggested publicly) that they have to buy out staff, perhaps they're too poor to afford a Dome renovation right now. That's probably not the case, but it's a stance worth challenging. None of us wants to see the school move in the direction Rutgers did.

Arnold thinks athletics are a financial burden on the university. He is, at best uninformed and should not be making public comments on things he does not understand.

In the end, the university is going to fund only a small portion of the total cost of the renovation. We aren't talking about $205 million dollars. We are probably talking about 20 or 25. Most of the cost will be covered by government grants, private business investment and donations. You can argue that the money donated to this project would have otherwise been donated to academics and maybe that is true to some extent.

But this investment is required to remove the giant risk SU takes each year they continue to try and make do with what we have today. Our good luck will not go on forever. There is a reason this is the last of the air supported domes in operation in the US. Protecting the guaranteed income stream we get from participating in ACC athletics has to be a priority. Whatever money SU puts into the renovation will be recovered by income generated by athletics very quickly.

This should be a no brainer.

 

[Orijinal]

I'm not interested in a professor's opinion who 1) probably already makes WAY more money than I do, 2) only works 9.5 months of the year, 3) gets to repeat the same spiel every year to a new group of students, and then 4) asks for more money

 

[OttoMets]

Arnold thinks athletics are a financial burden on the university. He is, at best uninformed and should not be making public comments on things he does not understand.

In the end, the university is going to fund only a small portion of the total cost of the renovation. We aren't talking about $205 million dollars. We are probably talking about 20 or 25. Most of the cost will be covered by government grants, private business investment and donations. You can argue that the money donated to this project would have otherwise been donated to academics and maybe that is true to some extent.

But this investment is required to remove the giant risk SU takes each year they continue to try and make do with what we have today. Our good luck will not go on forever. There is a reason this is the last of the air supported domes in operation in the US. Protecting the guaranteed income stream we get from participating in ACC athletics has to be a priority. Whatever money SU puts into the renovation will be recovered by income generated by athletics very quickly.

This should be a no brainer.

I don't think Arnold's "it" referred to athletics in general. He's a smart guy and plenty informed about this. The claim is that a $200 million athletics infrastructure investment is, in the context of a school that bought out a couple hundred employees, a financial burden.

That's a reasonable hypothesis worth arguing, especially for someone who's got such an interest in the institution.

For the make-up of whatever sum the Dome renovation costs, I don't know what form it'll take. But I do know that debt service for the bonds SU took out for the Life Sciences building in 2007 or 2008 represents a burden that makes a lot of faculty and staff uncomfortable. They don't want to see SU go down this road again in the near future, not for athletics or anything else. (It goes without saying that a piece of this puzzle is missing if SU's not getting a favorable donor response, the state doesn't want to chip in, and there's opposition to financing the project.)

 

[Toga]

Interest rates are only going to go up.

 

[Fly Rodder]

I'm not interested in a professor's opinion who 1) probably already makes WAY more money than I do, 2) only works 9.5 months of the year, 3) gets to repeat the same spiel every year to a new group of students, and then 4) asks for more money

Which is perfectly acceptable, but is the objective of the university to make money on sports or provide an advanced education to students who already pay an exponentially increasing tuition*? Nationally, faculty are losing jobs while revenues for schools continue to rise and administrators make more and more. At some point, is it more important to have a high paid athletic staff, a pile of vice presidents, or highly qualified faculty? I personally think the dome/athletics is a revenue generator and needs to be updated, but faculty shouldn't be asked to take a pay freeze to support something that doesn't necessarily correspond to the mission of the school. And, more importantly, their opinion shouldn't be disregarded because people think the basketball coach is more important than a geology professor.



* Which, perhaps not surprisingly, may be more related to the fact that students can borrow more. If the pot never empties, why not charge more?

 

[Orijinal]

Which is perfectly acceptable, but is the objective of the university to make money on sports or provide an advanced education to students who already pay an exponentially increasing tuition*? Nationally, faculty are losing jobs while revenues for schools continue to rise and administrators make more and more. At some point, is it more important to have a high paid athletic staff, a pile of vice presidents, or highly qualified faculty? I personally think the dome/athletics is a revenue generator and needs to be updated, but faculty shouldn't be asked to take a pay freeze to support something that doesn't necessarily correspond to the mission of the school. And, more importantly, their opinion shouldn't be disregarded because people think the basketball coach is more important than a geology professor.



* Which, perhaps not surprisingly, may be more related to the fact that students can borrow more. If the pot never empties, why not charge more?

I hear ya. I didn't even suggest a pay freeze in what I said (maybe implied it) but I'm sure plenty of these professors can live very comfortably with the pay they get.

It's nonsense for faculty to suggest that money should only go to academic pursuits. Does Stanford only put money towards academics? What about Harvard, what about Yale?

It's just high brow snobbery. Investing in athletics does not have to detract from the main mission of the school. In fact, as many on here have said, it can serve to enhance it.

And what about the city in this discussion? That "athletic facility" keeps the city on the map

 

[sutomcat]

I don't think Arnold's "it" referred to athletics in general. He's a smart guy and plenty informed about this. The claim is that a $200 million athletics infrastructure investment is, in the context of a school that bought out a couple hundred employees, a financial burden.

That's a reasonable hypothesis worth arguing, especially for someone who's got such an interest in the institution.

For the make-up of whatever sum the Dome renovation costs, I don't know what form it'll take. But I do know that debt service for the bonds SU took out for the Life Sciences building in 2007 or 2008 represents a burden that makes a lot of faculty and staff uncomfortable. They don't want to see SU go down this road again in the near future, not for athletics or anything else. (It goes without saying that a piece of this puzzle is missing if SU's not getting a favorable donor response, the state doesn't want to chip in, and there's opposition to financing the project.)

I agree with you about funding being a key towards moving forward. The Life Sciences building cost was over $113 million. Don't see where the state or private businesses contributed anything. The Center for Science and Technology, constructed in 1987-88, cost $59 million. The state contributed $5 million and floated SU an interest free $27 million loan to help make that happen.

If it is not possible to get the type of funding breakdown SU got for the original construction of the Dome, or something close to it, this project should be a no go.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Which is perfectly acceptable, but is the objective of the university to make money on sports or provide an advanced education to students who already pay an exponentially increasing tuition*? Nationally, faculty are losing jobs while revenues for schools continue to rise and administrators make more and more. At some point, is it more important to have a high paid athletic staff, a pile of vice presidents, or highly qualified faculty? I personally think the dome/athletics is a revenue generator and needs to be updated, but faculty shouldn't be asked to take a pay freeze to support something that doesn't necessarily correspond to the mission of the school. And, more importantly, their opinion shouldn't be disregarded because people think the basketball coach is more important than a geology professor.



* Which, perhaps not surprisingly, may be more related to the fact that students can borrow more. If the pot never empties, why not charge more?

Considering Kent gutted a lot of the administration, and is fiscally responsible, I don't think administrative costs are rising at Syracuse like they were under Nancy.

 

[OttoMets]

I agree with you about funding being a key towards moving forward. The Life Sciences building cost was over $113 million. Don't see where the state or private businesses contributed anything. The Center for Science and Technology, constructed in 1987-88, cost $59 million. The state contributed $5 million and floated SU an interest free $27 million loan to help make that happen.

If it is not possible to get the type of funding breakdown SU got for the original construction of the Dome, or something close to it, this project should be a no go.

And they forgave the balance a few years ago in exchange for SU investing in the Near Westside Initiative. SciTech was a terrific deal for SU. It's unfortunate, but they'll probably need similar help for this renovation.

 

[Fly Rodder]

Considering Kent gutted a lot of the administration, and is fiscally responsible, I don't think administrative costs are rising at Syracuse like they were under Nancy.

I don't have any insight to the administration at SU and my post was more of a devil's advocate. I fully support faculty raising questions regarding athletic spending considering the core mission of the university. I also support a new/massively renovated multi-purpose sports arena (especially if they can tie into the I-81 reconstruction).

 

[Cheriehoop]

Disagree (big surprise) with all of your take on the article. It's clear that Phil Arnold and the others are concerned that, with a finite pot of money, athletics and athletics infrastructure spending is necessarily occurring at the expense of other areas (here, payroll). There's no indication that anyone's opposed to athletics spending, just that a) everyone should be mindful of the administration's priorities and b) athletics is a dangerous beast whose potential power ought to be checked.

If SU's really so poor (as is suggested publicly) that they have to buy out staff, perhaps they're too poor to afford a Dome renovation right now. That's probably not the case, but it's a stance worth challenging. None of us wants to see the school move in the direction Rutgers did.

Don't they know or at least read how private companies, government employees , have all been trimming and eliminating jobs by offering employee buyouts? Even most of the Fortune 500 companies have slimmed down by offering incentives for employees to leave their jobs. It's also occurring in non -profits - everywhere.

There already have been numerous articles about universities, colleges offering incentives to leave. They aren't immune to the same forces and direction that "for profit" firms do, particularly in light of the demographic imbalance. They might not like it for obvious reasons but it's not tied to athletic expenditures. It's now a widespread management policy for any organization to offer incentives for employees to leave and reduce costs across the board.

The Workforce that Won’t Retire

Ohio State University to allow colleges to offer buyouts to employees

University to offer voluntary retirement package to eligible employees | Penn State University

 

[SU68]

Yeah I noticed no one from Whitman or Maxwell. Nice

Agree. History, geography and religion are not renown majors as are Whitman and Maxwell majors. The quoted professors are probably always having to look over their shoulder.

 

[SU68]

Disagree (big surprise) with all of your take on the article. It's clear that Phil Arnold and the others are concerned that, with a finite pot of money, athletics and athletics infrastructure spending is necessarily occurring at the expense of other areas (here, payroll). There's no indication that anyone's opposed to athletics spending, just that a) everyone should be mindful of the administration's priorities and b) athletics is a dangerous beast whose potential power ought to be checked.

If SU's really so poor (as is suggested publicly) that they have to buy out staff, perhaps they're too poor to afford a Dome renovation right now. That's probably not the case, but it's a stance worth challenging. None of us wants to see the school move in the direction Rutgers did.

SU had to buy out staff to get the salary budget back in line. It grew tremendously (primarily for administrative positions) during Queen Nancy's reign. For her efforts, SU lost its AAU membership.

 

[OttoMets]

Agree. History, geography and religion are not renown majors as are Whitman and Maxwell majors. The quoted professors are probably always having to look over their shoulder.

Funny. A great many geography and history majors come out of (wait for it...wait for it) Maxwell. And SU's got a very well-regarded religion program.

Whitman...not so much.

SU had to buy out staff to get the salary budget back in line. It grew tremendously (primarily for administrative positions) during Queen Nancy's reign. For her efforts, SU lost its AAU membership.

For SU's selling off its medical school in the '50s, SU set itself on a course to lose its AAU membership. Cantor withdrew when the university was about to be kicked out.

She and Kent have been just as irresponsible as every other major college president in loading up the administration with highly-paid executive positions that didn't exist previously. The only people who defend this trend are the people hired for these jobs.

 

[NJCuse97]

For SU's selling off its medical school in the '50s, SU set itself on a course to lose its AAU membership. Cantor withdrew when the university was about to be kicked out.

She and Kent have been just as irresponsible as every other major college president in loading up the administration with highly-paid executive positions that didn't exist previously. The only people who defend this trend are the people hired for these jobs.

Agree that the med school sale was a mistake. I think Kent has AAU aspirations (he was at Michigan right?) and that is a big part I think he wants a new med school, but i have not heard anything about that in some time.

 

[OttoMets]

Agree that the med school sale was a mistake. I think Kent has AAU aspirations (he was at Michigan right?) and that is a big part I think he wants a new med school, but i have not heard anything about that in some time.

It would be nice. Very ambitious, but it's a good goal to set.

 

[AZOrange]

Funny. A great many geography and history majors come out of (wait for it...wait for it) Maxwell. And SU's got a very well-regarded religion program.

Whitman...not so much.




For SU's selling off its medical school in the '50s, SU set itself on a course to lose its AAU membership. Cantor withdrew when the university was about to be kicked out.

She and Kent have been just as irresponsible as every other major college president in loading up the administration with highly-paid executive positions that didn't exist previously. The only people who defend this trend are the people hired for these jobs.

Sorry I was not trying to belittle anyone's profession just that they didn't seek prof opinions on biz/Econ side.

 

[RMH44]

I don't think Arnold's "it" referred to athletics in general. He's a smart guy and plenty informed about this. The claim is that a $200 million athletics infrastructure investment is, in the context of a school that bought out a couple hundred employees, a financial burden.

That's a reasonable hypothesis worth arguing, especially for someone who's got such an interest in the institution.

For the make-up of whatever sum the Dome renovation costs, I don't know what form it'll take. But I do know that debt service for the bonds SU took out for the Life Sciences building in 2007 or 2008 represents a burden that makes a lot of faculty and staff uncomfortable. They don't want to see SU go down this road again in the near future, not for athletics or anything else. (It goes without saying that a piece of this puzzle is missing if SU's not getting a favorable donor response, the state doesn't want to chip in, and there's opposition to financing the project.)

Maybe the couple hundred employees bought out were part of Syverud's plan to eliminate redundancy/bloat that naturally compiles within a bureaucracy over time?

Whatever the reason for the cuts, it gives renovation opponents straw men to use as negotiation tools.

 

[OttoMets]

Sorry I was not trying to belittle anyone's profession just that they didn't seek prof opinions on biz/Econ side.

Nah, understood, all in good fun.

 

[upperdeck]

depending on research, prof probably make 100-300K, then those that do research can make another 100K in summer salary and then those that want can also be involved in side projects worth even more. there are other perks if one wants them too.. sabbaticals can be used create even larger amounts of income every few years and i would assume Su has a program for them to live on campus in dorm settings basically living for free for 2-3 years. I know some here take advantage of that, sell the car, and rent out the home and bring in 100K while living on the colleges dime.

There are also ones who live on the edge, dont do the research or are in a field that is very limited and are broke. Most of the ones i deal with are doing quite well, I know of ones who are flush enough they dont even cash their pay checks before the expire..