Maybe I’m too hard on the state folks because I see the hard work the local folks do; but it’s hard to escape the feeling that state legislators would prefer to get credit for cutting taxes and balancing their budget while making the local folks do the hard stuff; like cutting services or raising taxes locally to provide services mandated by the state or expected by constituents.
College tuition increase hearings by the state budget committee are another round in this. Seth Slabaugh, writing for the Muncie Star Press, has an article on Ball State’s President Jo Ann Gora pushing back a little bit against the state.
“Tuition is going up because the state’s share of the cost is going down, and in Ball State’s case it has gone down dramatically,” Gora said. “The point we’re trying to make here, and it may be the most important point that we make, is that tuition is not going up because our spending is out of control.”
We saw similar accusations when the State was balancing its budget on the backs of local government. Rather than acknowledge that fact, state lawmakers would accuse local government of being out of control with its spending.
Parents trying to send kids to college absolutely don’t want to hear that they have to pay more in tuition because State government has other priorities. State lawmakers likely don’t want their constituent parents to hear that either. So, they hold these hearings to hold college administrators’ feet to the fire a little bit. Probably nothing wrong with that, in and of itself; but we shouldn’t believe that state lawmakers aren’t contributing in a relatively direct way to these tuition increases.
Pretty much right on here Doug.
When you control the purse, you get to control the blame.
The state does a heck of a job with both parts of that process right now.
Everyone knows the universities have been the golden children for at least the past 10 years.
They have been used as an conduit for billions in building projects, benefactor from a poor economy, and a employer of choice/retirement home for many current and ex-politicians and their families.
They have gotten fat and greedy and its time for Higher Education Reform to address problems with accountability, accessibility, and affordability.
When I think of people and entities that have gotten fat and greedy over the past decade, Universities aren’t the first organizations that jump to mind.
And yet, they probably should jump to mind. Exploding budgets seem to be sort of a recurring theme when entrenched academic loons are at the helm instead of pragmatic business people.
When I see the rate tuition was rising before the state started cutting funding, I think it supports the idea that universities are spending too much.
Going back to IU, I’m seeing grand buildings being built. Does a $10million pretty building educate better than a $1million functional building?
All that said, I agree Doug, universities are not the first that come to mind. Wall Street companies that love to cling to capitalism when they’re winning but asked to be bailed out with socialism instead of bowing to Darwin are the ones that come to mind when I think of people getting fat & greedy.
As at all levels of education funding in this state, building funds and operational funds are separate and segregated funds.
paddy, that is part of the problem.
The segregation of funds in that fashion should either be changed or the reasons for the segregation should be repeatedly and publicly explained. I recall when I lived up in Monticello, the teachers up there being a little disgruntled about a nice, new baseball facility that was being built as they were letting teachers go and/or freezing compensation.
Never said it wasn’t, but it can’t be an argument to correlate tuition hikes and the cost of building projects.
You’re right Doug, it confuses education funding issues everywhere.
However, most people don’t care to listen when it is explained to them.
Horse/Lead/Drink issue.
The whole issue of the state’s oversight of local governmental action is of concern, but with the belief of collective wisdom of the state legislaturer the situation is not likely to change but likely could become more controlling. Example: local town does all the things according to state laws and rules (gets figures from the state, prepares budget, advertises, holding public hearing, etc.) then now must have it reviewed by county council (currently only review not make changes but this likely within the next year or so) then turns in budget to state who says figures they provided were only estimates so have to wait until 18 month budget is already in place before state tells town what their budget will really be. Then as discussed with areas of budget being divided IF town wants to change anything due to whatever factor they must get the states permission. Also, town can only seek additional funding with the state’s permission, that is, local option things are only allowed if state says it is allowed. And bookkeeping, etc. are done by state rules and don’t try to change fees or other local laws/rules without state permission. Many seeking local offices have no idea what is involved and neither do most citizens—same for schools, towns, townships, county, etc……
Until I see superintendents publicly holding the state to task for giving them too much building money & not enough operation money, I’m going to give the schools an equal dose of blame.
I’m personally pointing to it as external evidence of a mentality of waste.
Thank you for demonstrating exactly what I am talking about.
The state doesn’t give k-12 schools building money, that is all locally raised. Now, there is waste, and some pretty obvious waste, however that isn’t a “The state gave me too much money issue”.
Universities are slightly different animals as they raise building money in other ways.
I will gladly give anyone a crash course in school finance, particularly k-12. It isn’t as easy as one thinks.
Once again, I note that the returns to education (increased salaries of the educated vs. the non-educated) mostly accrue to those being educated. There of course is a small return to government in the form of higher taxes, but this return can never make up for the massive amounts spent on educating the next generation.
So… in the face of budget deficits, decreasing state aid to colleges is a good policy.
I also note that a walk around the average university is pretty eye opening. The amount and type of building in recent years is staggering. And unlike the commercial sector, where everything is built as cheaply as possible, in the university and educational sectors, everything is built substantially, architectually, and for top dollar (masonry construction, for example).
I’d argue that there’s a catch to building budgets (as in the funds which are spent on creating new building or renovating old ones) and that is that the appearance of a campus does a great deal toward influencing students to attend or not attend that school.
Truthfully, I think savings could be amassed in two areas.
1) Cut the salaries of administrators. If this means that politicians don’t move into university management as an easy retirement option, and the positions instead go to people who care about doing them well, I’d be well pleased.
I would add that faculty and staff in some buildings must pay for their own air conditioning units in office spaces; this does not apply to the administrators.
2) Make students *and* their parents more aware of how their tuition dollars get spent. IU-Bloomington has to pay custodial staff (full-time, plus benefits, etc.) whose sole job is to clean classrooms. I don’t mean “empty trash cans” I mean people who have to walk down every row of the huge lecture halls to clean up all of the garbage that the students leave behind.
The current attitude is, “well, it’s their job to clean this up” – how much could be saved on tuition if students (and faculty and staff, I would add) could locate a trash can.
I agree that administrative layers at the universities are bloated, but the attacks on building budgets are mostly misplaced–at least at IUPUI, where I teach (and where the HVAC has not worked properly in the 14 years I’ve been there.) On our campus, at least, the great majority of new construction has come from private donations and legacies: the new Simon Cancer Center, the Glick Eye Center, etc. The Eskanazis underwrote Herron and more recently the new Wishard, and the law school was built thanks to money from the estate of Larry Inlow (with a library funded by Ruth Lilly. I could go on, but the taxpayers’ portion of those expenditures was relatively minor. Meanwhile, the carpet in our faculty offices gets changed every 30 years, and my (metal) desk is celebrating its 60th birthday.
All the expensive stuff must go to Bloomington.
Sorry, wrong about the Bloomington remark. My son (non-faculty) works there — works his you-know-what off. His salary is about 25% less than private industry would pay for the same hard job, and due to the recent pay freeze, he hadn’t had a raise in 3 years. He did get a merit raise this year, but of course is still behind. He works in collaboration with staff from other universities and is painfully aware that his collaborators in those places have higher salaries for the same work (which he is better at). Plus, with the exception of one thing, the benefits aren’t that great. OK, you are going to say why doesn’t he leave. Well, he has a family that requires two incomes, and his wife has a private industry job in Bloomington. It would be hard for them to leave both his and her families in Indiana and both to find comparable jobs elsewhere.
Now, before you respond, please know that HE does not complain, these are my comments. I am just trying to demonstrate that “bloat”, and other such terms, are somewhat inflammatory; and the “…” universities employ real people who do valuable work (for the state) to provide for their families and pay taxes to the state and contribute to their communities, and they deserve proper compensation for doing so.
Paddy,
I’ve been in a meeting with an architect during the planning of a high school in Indiana. The school wanted a simple building, and the architect pointed out that while the plan they wanted would only cost $60/sqft, the funds they got (be it local or from state) permitted $110/sqft, so there was no reason not to build a nicer building that would cost more to operate later.
Sheila & Mary, I’ve seen what you’ve seen & agree. I’ve also seen the other areas, from technology mainly since that’s the area I’ve worked in. Many times, no expense is spared on something that is of trivial importance while things that really do need more money are ignored.
Part of the reason I go on about the grand buildings even though I understand that part of the time, some wealthy alum pays for it, is that they are stupid about the way they build it. They put in carpet instead of flooring that will last 30 years. They put in 20 foot ceilings that look much more impressive but cause higher HVAC costs for a bunch of wasted space, and those operating costs suck funding for the life of the building. THAT is the type of waste I’m complaining of. There are some really stupid smart people that plan some of this stuff.
Cute story about the architect.
Still doesn’t support a single point you are trying to make about taxes and state support for operating funds at schools.
Your observations about operational cost have merit, but you are simply uniformed on how that side of the equation is funded.
And this accidentally got dropped from my first comment…
I also doubt your cute story because you aren’t going to build a new building for $60/foot. The most basic hvac/electrical/plumbing system is going to run ~$45/foot. A roof is another $5/foot. You aren’t getting what remains for $10/foot.
Jason, which grand buildings on the IU-Bloomington campus are you thinking of? I enrolled in 1992, and since then, I can think of the following construction:
The School of Ed building was brand new when I enrolled. It replaced a building that was built in the 1950s and now is occupied by the School of Music.
The Student Recreational Sports Complex, which opened in 1995, which expanded fitness opportunities for students, which previously had been limited to the HPER, which last was expanded in the 1950s;
The science building that is located between Myers Hall and the Chemistry Building. I don’t believe any new science building or addition thereto had been build since the 1950s, either. This was done within the last 5 years.
The expansion of the University Theater and Drama department on the back of the IU auditorium. The Auditorium is a WPA building that was finished around 1940.
The construction of the graduate business building and the bridge across Fee Lane, which was done about 10 years ago. The original Business School was constructed in the late 1950s or early 1960s.
There have been two parking garage projects: the garage on Jordan Avenue north of Read Hall and the reconstruction of the Business/Psychology parking garage that was part of the B-School expansion.
There have been some additions to the athletic plant: Mellencamp Pavilion, the indoor football practice facility, was donated by a famous IU booster, as the name suggests. The recent north end zone addition to Memorial Stadium and the construction of Cook Hall, a basketball practice facility, have been funded by donations. Before then, neither Memorial Stadium (1960) nor Assembly Hall (1971) had received much more than cosmetic or maintenance work.
So, if I am forgetting some “grand building,” please let me know. I haven’t seen anything that I would call a construction boom at IU-Bloomington, particularly considering that enrollment has increased by 20 percent in the last couple of decades (it was 26K/35K when I started; it’s now 32K/42K). It’s certainly in stark contrast to my grad school alma mater, Notre Dame, which has probably doubled its academic building square footage over the last two decades without anything approaching that sort of enrollment increase.
There is some new(ish) deal on the corner of Kirkwood and Indiana across from the Sample Gates. It housed an arcade when I was in law school. (Mortal Kombat was a great way to blow off some steam.) Maybe a visitor center of some sort? I don’t know if that’s public or private construction though.
You are correct, Doug. RIP, Space Port. I thought about including that building. I am pretty sure that the building is IU-owned, but it’s not part of the campus proper, and in addition to the IU visitors’ center and Varsity Shop, it houses some non-university tenants, including the Pita Pit and Urban Outfitters. There is a similar building just south of it on Indiana, which I believe is also university-owned and houses Qdoba and Dagwoods. I think of those more as a university-owned commercial buildings than as “campus buildings,” if that makes sense. In any event, even if they produced no income, they aren’t “extravagant” and the former, in particular, represents a much better use than a run-down arcade.
IU owns quite a bit of the properties adjacent to what is officially the university itself. Certainly towards downtown on the west, but all along the southern edge (Second Street) and northern edges, as well. Probably has been buying properties up since the 1960s (at least). At a minimum, it allows the university to influence/control what (and who) occupies the areas across the streets from what is considered the “campus”.
Surely, Purdue does the same?