John Kerry's Katrina Speech

[Drbio]

I'd like to hear more about mavdog's theory of ignorance regarding the professors. It is very clear (as one) to me that he has no clue about the process at all.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Drbio
I'd like to hear more about mavdog's theory of ignorance regarding the professors. It is very clear (as one) to me that he has no clue about the process at all.

"theory of ignorance"??? "the process"???

you coined it, you explain it.

[Drbio]

I'd like to know how professorial treatment (as you put it) raises the costs of education.

[LRB]

no, my guess as to why the costs are increasing is how the professors are treated.
IMO it has nothing to do with "subsidies" as you put it.

Personally Doc I don't think that there is a way to intelligently explain the nonsense that Mavdog said about professors and which I've quoted above. I think that the only options that he has are to misdirect and/or follow with some equally opaque answers. What he said makes about as much sense as saying the the high price of gasoline is due to excessive cow flatulence. Although I think a better argument could be made for the latter than the former statement.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Drbio
I'd like to know how professorial treatment (as you put it) raises the costs of education.

from my experience, the tenured professors are not asked to carry a heavy work load.

for example, my bro and sis in law are both profs at a major university. they teach (on avg) three classes a semester, or a total of 12 hours of classroom time a week, plus about 3 to 6 hours of office time, that equals a total time of less than 20 hours/week. if they have taught the course before, they don't have to develop the course but fine tune it.

when bro had a year sabbatical, no classes were taught, and he spent his time writing a textbook. who rec the money for the textbook? he did, not the school.

the question was asked of why the cost of college is increasing greater than the rate of inflation.

dude speculates it is due to the ease of access, hence in his view it is demand driven.

my speculation is the system is inefficient, there is under-utilization of the talent pool.

[LRB]

Mavdog that's how it was pretty much when I started college 20 some-odd years ago at most of the big universities. However at the smaller community colleges I know many a professor who works a heck of a lot more than 40 hours per week. Also, college professor's salaries aren't exactly at the top of the charts. I don't see how inefficient use of professors could account for the steep rise above inflation. Most professors I know are working at least as much as they were 20 years ago and aren't getting significant raises. But even if what you say is true, how do you account for colleges being able to keep increases prices at such a high rate while not decreasing students? What factor allows students to keep paying an every higher cost of education, and according to you for the colleges to be every more inefficient with that money?

[Drbio]

mavdog- I too am faculty at a major university. I can guarantee you that there is no basis in your last post....although at least now I see what you were thinking. Sabbatical committees are at every institution. The number of students allwoed to attend any university is capped. Some reach their enrollment goals...some don't. All courses, research, etc are planned for. A tenured professor taking sabbatical does not reduce the course offerings. It affects teh professor that is eligible to teach that course, but the students (in most cases) are accomodated by a colleague. When one isn't available, the professor usually ensures that the course (if it is a specialized one) is taught within a 2 year window to ensure that all students in a four year plan have access to two offerings. This doesn't affect the cost of a university education in any way.

Sabbaticals are planned for in every budget, every academic calendar and every annual departmental operation. Tenure similarly will not affect tuition rates as university planning understands that "X" number of tenured faculty are going to be in place. Tenured faculty sometimes (nto always) recieve lessened teaching loads. More often, research faculty recieve lesser teaching loads. It is in those cases where some of the negativity towards tenured faculty is derived. There is no actual cost application however. These are all very much budgeted for and compensated for in the various planning processes.

I can talk to you all day about this. Your initial concern is unfounded and innacurate.

[Mavdog]

that was a very credible reply.

no, it isn't the lack of planning for profs on sabbatical but rather the inefficiences inherent in the system. The prof is paid a full salary during the sabbatical, yet they don't teach a single course, someone else will be paid to do that. very inefficient. the fact that it is budgeted for doesn't negate the cost.

The point that you make- tenured profs "receive lessened teaching loads"- is exactly what I am referring to. Yes, they are "budgeted for" yet that is again the issue- they are compensated fully. the more tenured profs who have lessened loads, the more RA/TA's who will be hired (at addl expense) to pick up the slack.

what is true is the light time demand that I described of profs, coupled with their increased salaries (from what I've seen from $75K to $125K) could very well explain the increasing tuition costs.

it certainly doesn't come from too many students chasing spots and pressuring tuition expenses up.

[LRB]

no, it isn't the lack of planning for profs on sabbatical but rather the inefficiences inherent in the system. The prof is paid a full salary during the sabbatical, yet they don't teach a single course, someone else will be paid to do that. very inefficient. the fact that it is budgeted for doesn't negate the cost.

Sabaticals are new, so why have they suddenly started costing proportionally more?

The point that you make- tenured profs "receive lessened teaching loads"- is exactly what I am referring to. Yes, they are "budgeted for" yet that is again the issue- they are compensated fully. the more tenured profs who have lessened loads, the more RA/TA's who will be hired (at addl expense) to pick up the slack.

The more tenured professors getting lighter teaching loads and more RA/TA's is not a new phenomenon, why are you claiming that this is now costing so proportionally much more?

what is true is the light time demand that I described of profs, coupled with their increased salaries (from what I've seen from $75K to $125K) could very well explain the increasing tuition costs.

Generally everyone's salary has increased over time. Increased salaries mean relatively little in and of themselves. Are you attempting to claim that professor salaries have skyrocketed at several times the rate of inflation? Have any data to back it up besides a sampling size of 2?

[Drbio]

One quick point...don't have much time here...


RA's/TA's are often funded out of state allocations (from state supported schools and to a lesser degree private ones) and federal funds (which every school receives). Those again are not plausible factors of an increase in tuition. It is the arena of operational expenditures (utilities, insurance, building funds, maintenance, preventative upkeep) where cost increases are coming from. The tenure track, number of assistantships, etc are not the causitive factor here.

later.

[Mavdog]

no, sabbaticals have been a fixture of higher education for decades.

the more tenured profs there are, the more they need additional support.

just for illustration, I went to a couple of university's websites to see if their budgets were available. most are not broken out, but here are some that were.

for instance, a mainstream university, Southern Mississippi, devotes 43% of its budget to salaries ($60M of a $137M in expenses). there is not another line item even close to that percentage.

James Madison University devotes 80% of its expenses ($103M of $128M) to salaries. that is by far the highest I found.

Penn has 54% of its expenses allocated for "compensation".

the data says it clear- the major expense of colleges and universities is their faculty.

[kg_veteran]

Mavdog - So what's your proposal to stem the rising cost of secondary education? Reduce professor salaries? Doubt that gets very far.

[LRB]

the data says it clear- the major expense of colleges and universities is their faculty.

Let's assume that you're correct and salary is the number one expenditure across the nation for higher education. But what is driving the salaries higher? There has to be a reason.

[Drbio]

There is no point to debating with you if you are going to ignore hard facts from those who live in the academic environment. All of the professorial issues are clearly budgeted for. They are the core of the university. They ARE the university. It is the operational costs that affect long term budgeting. Faculty/staff compensation rises at most universities in the realm of 2-5% a year. Operational expenditures (such as those I posted earlier) on the otherhand increase at a rate of nearly 10-15% annually. This isn't hard to grasp.

[Mavdog]

in all due respect, I'm putting out the facts and you're relating your personal perspective.

here's an interesting statement from the D of Education:

Overall, from 1988-89 through 1997-98, tuition charges in both the public and private sectors rose faster than inflation. The study found that tuition increases at private institutions were related to factors such as providing more institutional financial aid to students and increases in faculty salaries, along with decreases in endowment revenue and private gifts. In contrast, at public 4-year institutions, a decline in state appropriations was the single most important factor associated with increases in tuition. In addition, states with higher per capita income and higher tuition at public institutions had higher private not-for-profit 4-year college tuitions.

link

[Drbio]

No sir...I have provided actual five year averages from our university related to faculty/staff salaries and operational expeditures. A brief perusal of the BIG 12 schools shows very very similar trends. I am certain that most major universities are going to fall in line with those trends. It was not personal anecdotes but hard numbers over our own five year trend. These are not arguable numbers.


I'd like to point out that the D of Ed quote is using data that is as much as 17 years old. Recent tuition increases across the country are due to lower returns on endowments due to downward market trends, increased operational expenditures and the desire to provide increased localized academic aid. (Source: The Chronicle)

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
Mavdog - So what's your proposal to stem the rising cost of secondary education? Reduce professor salaries? Doubt that gets very far.

seems to me the wrong thing to do is to put more obstacles in the way of prospective students.

the solution appears to be an increase in enrollment with a static staff level.

[Drbio]

Once again, you clearly do not understand the academic environment. The solution is most definitely NOT an increase in student enrollment. Increasing class sizes only results in dissatisfied students. It's been shown over and over and is very well documented that those schools who fall into this trap will always falter both academically and financially in the long term. If you do not you will suffer the inevitable dissatified student body. For every ten students that you add, you will add approximately 1.2 FTE (full time equivalents - employees) to support them properly (Source SACS). That doesn't even account for the increases in food preparation, dorm space, increased utilities, counseling support, library materials, office hour needs of the faculty and staff, etc etc etc.....there is so much cost involved in additional students.

The bottom line here is this: Unless it is relatively new and experiencing the inevitable growing pains, most colleges and universities operate at or near their most efficient staff, faculty and student level. All of the budgets, staff planning, faculty allocation etc is well known and working. The only realistic drain on dollars year after year is either elective (such as building new buildings) or in the realm of increased utilities and operational expeditures. The hard fact of life is that tuition increases. The vast majority of faculty salaries (and most certainly staff salaries) are not what underwrites these increases. They contribute at some minor level, but they are not the root cause which is what you are so incorrectly espousing.

[dude1394]

Doc...Glad to hear someone experienced. Why would building, insurance, etc. increase greater than the inflation rate. Especially so much greater that they overwhelm the rate of increase for what is the university..the staff?

Is it expansion related stuff? I look at UNT for example and they are expanding like crazy.

[Drbio]

Insurance rates are absurd and depending on where the campus is located (ours is on a river - fllod zones and all) you might experience tremendous rate hikes, especially after 9/11 and most likely Hurricane Katrina (and possibly Rita).

The building expansions are a different animal. I'm no expert in this area by any means, but here is my observation andwhat I've learned by listening to those who know. Right now, money is cheap. Universities can borrow money at amazingly low bond rates. We too just underwent tremendous expansion. When you finance through bonds, you take a financial hit the first several years, reach a break even over time and then begin making profit (provided nothing happens to the facility. Ex. We had a major fire in a 105+ million dollar project that cost us over 3 million in self insurance - we did get some help from subcontractors. During that initial period, it is often the case that tuition increases are mandated to cover the costs involved in the initial payback of these bonds. Ultimately, the school comes out ahead but there are growing pains if you will. Even though inflation may rise at a steady state, building campaigns incur significant costs in that interim period.

Other examples...Construction materials, asbestos abatement, environmental sampling...alll things that universities face daily. These thigns have all increased since 9/11 and again after katrina due to demand. Obviously gas too.

The cost of fuel to run our power plant has risen faster than the inflationary rate. Another example.

All of these things have increased (especially in the last 5 years or so at a rate higher than the traditional salary increase of 3-5%. Sadly, here we experienced such financial shortages in the last three years due to poor decisionmaking in building programs and an untimely change in insurance carriers, that we suspended the traditional 3-5% raise last year. It was very tough.

[Drbio]

Again, I am no expert but these are certainly real facts here and in our sister institutions.

Another thing that is in play here are endowments and the return on the endowments. Some of the returns on endowments are used to buffer operational increases. Again, I am out of my element in this area, but we had the number one ranked return (percentage-wise) last year on our endowment of all NCAA schools (you may check this on our website and at USNews and World Report) and we still couldn't afford raises last year. We supplemented our operational budget with the nations best return and couldn't gain ground.

During a time where a documented ZERO PERCENT increase in salaries occurred, operations here have therefore resulted in tuition hikes and more are planned over the next couple of years.

[dude1394]

Has anyone found any numbers about number of applicants? This all sounds like a college building (students and facilities) is causing prices to rise. I just don't believe it's salaries rising that can cause this type of increase, unless it's something like "star" professors at the elite schools. I could see those costs rising greatly, although as some have noted the "price" may be high (like an airline ticket) but because of creative pricing, many of the trips are discounted.

[Drbio]

In my post above (9:07) I wrote "The vast majority of faculty salaries (and most certainly staff salaries) are not what underwrites these increases. They contribute at some minor level, but they are not the root cause which is what you are so incorrectly espousing."

There are cases as you alluded to where certain faculty are a financical drain. These are usually highly recruited cutting edge internaional stars that come with hefty price tags. Thsose do enter the fray in all likelihood although I do not know how much.

A note on applicants: We turned down thousands of applicants, as do most schools. One problem these days is that kids apply to 20 schools and obviously attend one. That is 19 rejections which appears to inflate the numbers but really do not.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Drbio
No sir...I have provided actual five year averages from our university related to faculty/staff salaries and operational expeditures. A brief perusal of the BIG 12 schools shows very very similar trends. I am certain that most major universities are going to fall in line with those trends. It was not personal anecdotes but hard numbers over our own five year trend. These are not arguable numbers.


I'd like to point out that the D of Ed quote is using data that is as much as 17 years old. Recent tuition increases across the country are due to lower returns on endowments due to downward market trends, increased operational expenditures and the desire to provide increased localized academic aid. (Source: The Chronicle)

no, that is absolutely wrong. the data EXTENDS from 88 to 98, the report was releaed in 2002.

the data says that thw two largest contributors to increaed tuition costs are salaries and increased financial aid.

[Drbio]

You are truly an idiot. I stated and I quote:

I'd like to point out that the D of Ed quote is using data that is <u>as much as 17 years old.</u>

The last time I checked, the difference in years between 2005 and 1988 is 17 years...so you know...I was not wrong and once again you have shown your backside when you were ABSOLUTELY WRONG yet again. At least you are consistent. Bottom line...this is old pre9/11 data. The dynamics have changed.

And BTW...you ignore the factual message (again) to falsely point out a math errror? It figures.

[LRB]

Obviously the data ranges from between 17 and 7 years in age. Doesn't really matter when it was compiled. What was spent in 1988 is still 17 year old data even if the financial numbers were gathered only 3 years ago. There is no fountain of youth for financial data just because it was compiled at a later date than it occured.

[Mavdog]

The clear inference you made is that the data was too old to have any meaning, which is false, to do a study over time one MUST go and gather that data. the Dof Ed report is valid and supports my assertion.

bio wrote:

Once again, you clearly do not understand the academic environment. The solution is most definitely NOT an increase in student enrollment. Increasing class sizes only results in dissatisfied students. It's been shown over and over and is very well documented that those schools who fall into this trap will always falter both academically and financially in the long term. If you do not you will suffer the inevitable dissatified student body. For every ten students that you add, you will add approximately 1.2 FTE (full time equivalents - employees) to support them properly (Source SACS). That doesn't even account for the increases in food preparation, dorm space, increased utilities, counseling support, library materials, office hour needs of the faculty and staff, etc etc etc.....there is so much cost involved in additional students.

once again, you do not understand the business modeling, and do not understand my point. the suggestion is NOT to increase class size, the point is to increase the number of classes taught. the illustration I have made is about an underutilized. "inefficient" faculty and physical plant. adding addititional students while not increasing the size of the faculty without question will NOT increase the FTE but rather decrease it. there will not be additional costs of utilities, counseling or library materials. those exist already and are not it appears optimized in use.

The bottom line here is this: Unless it is relatively new and experiencing the inevitable growing pains, most colleges and universities operate at or near their most efficient staff, faculty and student level. All of the budgets, staff planning, faculty allocation etc is well known and working. The only realistic drain on dollars year after year is either elective (such as building new buildings) or in the realm of increased utilities and operational expeditures. The hard fact of life is that tuition increases. The vast majority of faculty salaries (and most certainly staff salaries) are not what underwrites these increases. They contribute at some minor level, but they are not the root cause which is what you are so incorrectly espousing.

Odd, you assert that the fact that tuition costs are increasing greater than the CPI primarily due to utility costs, which of course are a component of the CPI. it's pretty hard to claim that the university's utility costs would be any different than what everybody else pays, so those costs are already in the CPI.
Then there is the issue of insurance, which is quite contradictory if as you said your school self insures. pretty hard to see increasing costs in that instance.
environmental costs? hogwash, there was a mandate to have items such as asbestos suveyed and (if friable) remediated over a decade ago. new construction has no asbestos either, so no need to abate in that instance.
the issue isn't that "The hard fact of life is that tuition increases" and nobody is arguing that. tuition, like other expenses, will increase. the question is why tuition is growing greater than the rate of inflation.

[LRB]

The clear inference you made is that the data was too old to have any meaning, which is false

The clear assumption that you've made is that the rate of increase of tuition as compared to inflation was the same over the 10 year period covering the 1987/1988 school year through the 1997/1998 school year is the same as that covering the 2001/2002 through the 2004/2005 school years. There are no facts in evidence to show whether this is or is not true. All there we have is your opinion of someone outside the field and not privy to as many details, you, versus the opion of someone inside the field of and privy to more details, doc. Gotta give doc the benefit here unless you can up up with some substancial proof.

once again, you do not understand the business modeling, and do not understand my point. the suggestion is NOT to increase class size, the point is to increase the number of classes taught. the illustration I have made is about an underutilized. "inefficient" faculty and physical plant. adding addititional students while not increasing the size of the faculty without question will NOT increase the FTE but rather decrease it. there will not be additional costs of utilities, counseling or library materials. those exist already and are not it appears optimized in use.

FYI more classes mean an increase in utilities unless you want to have the classes in the dark and the heating/cooling shut off. More students also incresase library costs at the minimum to keep track of more students and more books loaned out. More students means more demand for counseling, which means paying more for counseling unless the counseling resources aren't optimized. But there is no facts in evidence that counseling isn't optimized or if it isn't that adding more students would make it more optimized. Also to add faculty to teach the additional student necissitates adding or rearranging building space to provide for more faculty office space. There's still the increase expense in parking, dorms, administration, etc. for additional students.

Odd, you assert that the fact that tuition costs are increasing greater than the CPI primarily due to utility costs, which of course are a component of the CPI. it's pretty hard to claim that the university's utility costs would be any different than what everybody else pays, so those costs are already in the CPI.

There is nothing to show that the % of expenses that utilities occupy for university's is the same as throughout the others segments of society that are measured to compile the CPI. It is very reasonable to claim that it is different. If the universities % for utlities expense is greater than the average %, then doc has a damn strong argument. No facts in evidence other than opinion to support this one way or another. Doc again gets the nod due to more expertise in the field.

Then there is the issue of insurance, which is quite contradictory if as you said your school self insures. pretty hard to see increasing costs in that instance.

Again you are stuck on stupid. Whether you pay another company to manage the risks of insurance for you or you manage those risks for yourself, you still have to pay for insurance. In the 1st case you pay a monthly premium. In the 2nd case you pay whenever an incident occurs that would be covered by the insurance. For example if someone slips and falls on a freshly mopped floor at Baylor, then the university probably will have to pay any related medical costs. If these incidents are A) increasing in frequency and/or B) increasing in expense then it's not hard to justify an increase here. In fact only someone almost totally ignorant of the value of money would even suggest that more money paid out is not a highly potential case for cost increase.

hogwash, there was a mandate to have items such as asbestos suveyed and (if friable) remediated over a decade ago. new construction has no asbestos either, so no need to abate in that instance.

This assumes that there have been no regulations that have come into effect recently or whose deadline date is nearing. It also assumes that costs have not risen above inflation to take care of these matters. No facts in evidence either way. Doc's opinion wins again for same reasons.

the issue isn't that "The hard fact of life is that tuition increases" and nobody is arguing that. tuition, like other expenses, will increase. the question is why tuition is growing greater than the rate of inflation.

Yes, that is the question. And between the two of you, Doc has provided the far more compelling and logical rationale as to why this is happening.

[LRB]

OK Doc, just for my edification and to try and return to some semblance of the topic, what effect has the avalability of government funded loans and grants had on the rising cost of tuition if any? And what would be the effect of substantially increasing the influx of more government funds of the same type to the rate of tuition increase? Any suggestions for better use of government funds in this area? Most of us don't get to see near as many of the intimate financial details of running an institution of higher learning, and I'm sure that your insight would be appreciate by many of us.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB
The clear assumption that you've made is that the rate of increase of tuition as compared to inflation was the same over the 10 year period covering the 1987/1988 school year through the 1997/1998 school year is the same as that covering the 2001/2002 through the 2004/2005 school years. There are no facts in evidence to show whether this is or is not true. All there we have is your opinion of someone outside the field and not privy to as many details, you, versus the opion of someone inside the field of and privy to more details, doc. Gotta give doc the benefit here unless you can up up with some substancial proof.

no, you are wrong. the question is why tuition is increaing greater than the rate of inflation, and to make that statement one must look at the history. one must take the data over time, which is exactly what the DofEd did. unless someone claims that the facts have changed as it relateds to the rate of tuition increases, the data is valid.
I've yet to see any data from anyone who is "privy" to additional details, unles it is the caual reference to faculty wages increasing "3-5%" which is of course GREATER than the recent increase in inflation.

FYI more classes mean an increase in utilities unless you want to have the classes in the dark and the heating/cooling shut off. More students also incresase library costs at the minimum to keep track of more students and more books loaned out. More students means more demand for counseling, which means paying more for counseling unless the counseling resources aren't optimized. But there is no facts in evidence that counseling isn't optimized or if it isn't that adding more students would make it more optimized. Also to add faculty to teach the additional student necissitates adding or rearranging building space to provide for more faculty office space. There's still the increase expense in parking, dorms, administration, etc. for additional students.

oh, so your presumption is the utilities are turned off and the buildings arenot heated and cooled when classes are not there? How are library costs increased when the librarys are open already?
your error is to continue to say anything about "add[ing] faculty", which is NOT what I am proposing.

There is nothing to show that the % of expenses that utilities occupy for university's is the same as throughout the others segments of society that are measured to compile the CPI. It is very reasonable to claim that it is different. If the universities % for utlities expense is greater than the average %, then doc has a damn strong argument. No facts in evidence other than opinion to support this one way or another. Doc again gets the nod due to more expertise in the field.

sure, university's are not like every other user of utilities...they use them differently. what, they don't? what hogwash.

Again you are stuck on stupid. Whether you pay another company to manage the risks of insurance for you or you manage those risks for yourself, you still have to pay for insurance. In the 1st case you pay a monthly premium. In the 2nd case you pay whenever an incident occurs that would be covered by the insurance. For example if someone slips and falls on a freshly mopped floor at Baylor, then the university probably will have to pay any related medical costs. If these incidents are A) increasing in frequency and/or B) increasing in expense then it's not hard to justify an increase here. In fact only someone almost totally ignorant of the value of money would even suggest that more money paid out is not a highly potential case for cost increase.

no, the whole concept about self insurance is that one DOES NOT "pay for insurance", only potential claims. unless you can prove that the number of claims has increased the expense of self insurance is static. only someone totally ignorant about insurance would claim that self insurance costs are greater otherwise. is that you?

This assumes that there have been no regulations that have come into effect recently or whose deadline date is nearing. It also assumes that costs have not risen above inflation to take care of these matters. No facts in evidence either way. Doc's opinion wins again for same reasons.

sorry, I'm laughing. the EPA mandated that all public buildings complete an asbestos survey by the end of the 80's and to file a remediation plan that wa approved or revised, then put into motion. guess what? once asbestos is remediated, it no longer is there. therefore no more costs.
There is no expense for asbestos remediation in new construction.

talk about a closed mind....

[LRB]

sorry, I'm laughing. the EPA mandated that all public buildings complete an asbestos survey by the end of the 80's and to file a remediation plan that wa approved or revised, then put into motion. guess what? once asbestos is remediated, it no longer is there. therefore no more costs.
There is no expense for asbestos remediation in new construction.

I'll grant you that it would be pretty stupid to create an enviromental hazard with asbestos when constructing entirely new buildings. However are you trying to say that there are no universities nor colleges in the United State that are spending any money at all on dealing with asbestos either in pre-existing structures or in additions to pre-existing structures?

[dalmations202]

sorry, I'm laughing. the EPA mandated that all public buildings complete an asbestos survey by the end of the 80's and to file a remediation plan that wa approved or revised, then put into motion. guess what? once asbestos is remediated, it no longer is there. therefore no more costs.

FYI -- some of these aren't done, and haven't really been resolved yet. I know of a public school in Texas who went through asbestos abatement this summer. They are doing it in stages due to the cost. It will be another 5-7 years before they have the entire school district completely finished.

And costs have grown dramatically since they put this in the schools budget to raise the money by taxes in the 90's. Add to that advances in technology they want to implement while doing all the tear out and replacement, and their budget has skyrocketed -- even if their # of employees had gone down, and their average wage has not increased with the cost of living.

Many teachers in that school district took 12% pay cuts to help the district.

I know this isn't a college, but the same unexpected $$$ issues affect the school whether it is paid by the student or by taxpayers.

[dude1394]

I think that there is still some sort of issue here with so much financial aid and consumers not looking for bargains.

[Drbio]

I have a full time staff member who does NOTHING but asbestos abatement and remediation. Once again mavdog shows he knows jackshit.

I just don't have time right now to respond to all of his errors...which are tremendous. I'm being dispatched for Rita at 0600. mavdog hasn't a clue but I am sure that you all understand that anyways.

[dude1394]

Godspeed doc.

[kg_veteran]

You'll be in our prayers, Doc. Hopefully people are taking this storm seriously.

[dalmations202]

You are in my prayers Doc, take care, this is going to be a rough one.

[LRB]

Keep yourself safe Doc. My prayers are with you and all those in the path of Rita.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Drbio
I have a full time staff member who does NOTHING but asbestos abatement and remediation. Once again mavdog shows he knows jackshit.

hmm, so what you are saying is the buildings of Baylor are chock full of asbestos, and the school is aware? sure hope its not friable or it's lawsuit city.

It seems that AHERA, the EPA regs I mentioned from the 80's, only applies to elementary and secondary schools, but any college that here in 2005 still has asbestos in their buildings certainly can't be included in the "smart" category.

I just don't have time right now to respond to all of his errors...which are tremendous. I'm being dispatched for Rita at 0600. mavdog hasn't a clue but I am sure that you all understand that anyways.

still waiting.
Salaries that increase as much as (in your words) "5% a year" which is 2x's the underlying rate of inflation? that validates my suggestion.
or utility expenses that for some reason are greater at Baylor than what is in the CPI?
well?

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

hmm, so what you are saying is the buildings of Baylor are chock full of asbestos, and the school is aware? sure hope its not friable or it's lawsuit city.

Who, exactly, is going to sue them?

It seems that AHERA, the EPA regs I mentioned from the 80's, only applies to elementary and secondary schools, but any college that here in 2005 still has asbestos in their buildings certainly can't be included in the "smart" category.

As dalmations pointed out, there are many schools who have to do asbestos abatement and remediation in stages because of the cost. I'll let Doc speak to that, but I'm sure that's the case at Baylor. It really has nothing to do with whether or not they are "smart".