[BostonCard]

Interesting article about some friction at the University of Oregon between the academics and athletics side of things.

http://registerguard.com/rg/news/local/3...y.html.csp

“They have $98 million in revenue and, strangely, exactly $98 million in expenses,” he said. “If you look back year after year, you will find that revenue and expenses match up almost to a penny. ... When they get extra TV revenue, they do what they just did in February. They go to the president and the Board of Trustees and the coaches and the athletic director get raises, so expenses go up.”
...
Harbaugh suggested the university take charge of the athletic department budget centrally, with university financial officers doling out the annual budget and the university absorbing any excess — as is done now for other UO departments.

Oregon athletics department supporters will just call it petty jealousy, but others might remember the quip about having a football team with a university loosely attached.

BC 

[BostonCard]

Interesting article about some friction at the University of Oregon between the academics and athletics side of things.

http://registerguard.com/rg/news/local/3...y.html.csp

“They have $98 million in revenue and, strangely, exactly $98 million in expenses,” he said. “If you look back year after year, you will find that revenue and expenses match up almost to a penny. ... When they get extra TV revenue, they do what they just did in February. They go to the president and the Board of Trustees and the coaches and the athletic director get raises, so expenses go up.”
...
Harbaugh suggested the university take charge of the athletic department budget centrally, with university financial officers doling out the annual budget and the university absorbing any excess — as is done now for other UO departments.

Oregon athletics department supporters will just call it petty jealousy, but others might remember the quip about having a football team with a university loosely attached.

BC 

[Spiny_Norman]

Oregon athletics department supporters will just call it petty jealousy, but others might remember the quip about having a football team with a university loosely attached.

BC - are you referring to this quote from the University of Oklahoma president (which is from the 1940s or 1950s)?

"When asked by a member of a legislative appropriation committee, 'Why do you need so much money?' President Cross replied, 'I would like to build a University of which the football team could be proud.'"

http://www.okhistory.org/publications/en...ntry=CR017

[Spiny_Norman]

Oregon athletics department supporters will just call it petty jealousy, but others might remember the quip about having a football team with a university loosely attached.

BC - are you referring to this quote from the University of Oklahoma president (which is from the 1940s or 1950s)?

"When asked by a member of a legislative appropriation committee, 'Why do you need so much money?' President Cross replied, 'I would like to build a University of which the football team could be proud.'"

http://www.okhistory.org/publications/en...ntry=CR017

[CTcard]

One must temper any hope. After all, the new president's name is S©hill.

[CTcard]

One must temper any hope. After all, the new president's name is S©hill.

[stupac2]

I've read a few times that the symptom demonstrated there is the big driver for the skyrocketing cost of college in general. Basically that administrators have no incentives to keep tuition down, so they don't, and then respond by giving themselves raises and hiring more staff.

I've never looked too deeply into this, but it makes sense to me. That money has to be going somewhere, and it's not like there are all that many more Profs (or buildings).

[stupac2]

I've read a few times that the symptom demonstrated there is the big driver for the skyrocketing cost of college in general. Basically that administrators have no incentives to keep tuition down, so they don't, and then respond by giving themselves raises and hiring more staff.

I've never looked too deeply into this, but it makes sense to me. That money has to be going somewhere, and it's not like there are all that many more Profs (or buildings).

[BostonCard]

That, and I think I have also seen the quote about being a [xxx] being football team with a university loosely attached.

BC

[BostonCard]

That, and I think I have also seen the quote about being a [xxx] being football team with a university loosely attached.

BC

[pefloresjr]

Can't believe the author of the article is Professor Harbaugh.  I noticed that none of the comments refer to Prof. Harbaugh, they all refer to Prof. Bill or Mr. Bill.  Auto correct or still a little sensitive after only one loss to Harbaugh? 

Cheers,
Pete F. 

[pefloresjr]

Can't believe the author of the article is Professor Harbaugh.  I noticed that none of the comments refer to Prof. Harbaugh, they all refer to Prof. Bill or Mr. Bill.  Auto correct or still a little sensitive after only one loss to Harbaugh? 

Cheers,
Pete F. 

[CTcard]

I've never looked too deeply into this, but it makes sense to me. That money has to be going somewhere, and it's not like there are all that many more Profs (or buildings).

Properly answering this takes many more words than anyone here wants to read.

The short answer is that i) there is a lot of tuition pressure but it's more political and less market pressure, ii) administration broadly speaking has taken a much larger share of university budgets over the past 40 years (partially mandated by state and federal rules), and iii) professors take a correspondingly smaller share of university budgets (see the rise of adjuncts, etc.).

[CTcard]

I've never looked too deeply into this, but it makes sense to me. That money has to be going somewhere, and it's not like there are all that many more Profs (or buildings).

Properly answering this takes many more words than anyone here wants to read.

The short answer is that i) there is a lot of tuition pressure but it's more political and less market pressure, ii) administration broadly speaking has taken a much larger share of university budgets over the past 40 years (partially mandated by state and federal rules), and iii) professors take a correspondingly smaller share of university budgets (see the rise of adjuncts, etc.).

[Rally]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=12310.msg121555#msg121555 date=1435603722]
I've never looked too deeply into this, but it makes sense to me. That money has to be going somewhere, and it's not like there are all that many more Profs (or buildings).

Properly answering this takes many more words than anyone here wants to read.

The short answer is that i) there is a lot of tuition pressure but it's more political and less market pressure, ii) administration broadly speaking has taken a much larger share of university budgets over the past 40 years (partially mandated by state and federal rules), and iii) professors take a correspondingly smaller share of university budgets (see the rise of adjuncts, etc.).
[/quote]


If you are saying a lot of it has to do with federal intervention, rules, etc then I agree.  True at all levels.  In our district the salary budget is heavily weighted in the administrative offices.  Teachers get laid off but rarely administrators.  Not blaming the adminestrators per se, because they have to follow these rules, "suggestions," etc, but our district has increased the number of paid dietitians, etc. by 10 fold in the past 5 years or so.  Yet the kids are as fat or fatter than ever.  The kids just won't eat the swill they are given or forced to buy so binge on candy on their way home.the only food I have seen in this country nary worse than Wilbur, 1965/1966 is the local school lunchrooms.  Only one reason Washington politicians don't send their own kids to public school.

[Rally]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=12310.msg121555#msg121555 date=1435603722]
I've never looked too deeply into this, but it makes sense to me. That money has to be going somewhere, and it's not like there are all that many more Profs (or buildings).

Properly answering this takes many more words than anyone here wants to read.

The short answer is that i) there is a lot of tuition pressure but it's more political and less market pressure, ii) administration broadly speaking has taken a much larger share of university budgets over the past 40 years (partially mandated by state and federal rules), and iii) professors take a correspondingly smaller share of university budgets (see the rise of adjuncts, etc.).
[/quote]


If you are saying a lot of it has to do with federal intervention, rules, etc then I agree.  True at all levels.  In our district the salary budget is heavily weighted in the administrative offices.  Teachers get laid off but rarely administrators.  Not blaming the adminestrators per se, because they have to follow these rules, "suggestions," etc, but our district has increased the number of paid dietitians, etc. by 10 fold in the past 5 years or so.  Yet the kids are as fat or fatter than ever.  The kids just won't eat the swill they are given or forced to buy so binge on candy on their way home.the only food I have seen in this country nary worse than Wilbur, 1965/1966 is the local school lunchrooms.  Only one reason Washington politicians don't send their own kids to public school.

[JJJ]

So the modern-day saying would be:
"Those who can, do.
Those who can't do, teach.
Those who can't teach, administrate... and pay themselves handsomely for it!"
:P

[JJJ]

So the modern-day saying would be:
"Those who can, do.
Those who can't do, teach.
Those who can't teach, administrate... and pay themselves handsomely for it!"
:P

[CowboyIndian]

So the modern-day saying would be:
"Those who can, do.
Those who can't do, teach.
Those who can't teach, administrate... and pay themselves handsomely for it!"
:P

I thought it was, "Those who can't teach, teach gym."

[CowboyIndian]

So the modern-day saying would be:
"Those who can, do.
Those who can't do, teach.
Those who can't teach, administrate... and pay themselves handsomely for it!"
:P

I thought it was, "Those who can't teach, teach gym."

[SUBuddha]

So the modern-day saying would be:
"Those who can, do.
Those who can't do, teach.
Those who can't teach, administrate... and pay themselves handsomely for it!"
:P

Wait, I loved teaching, but I am supposed to be paid handsomely for being more administrative now? I need to talk to my dean.

[SUBuddha]

So the modern-day saying would be:
"Those who can, do.
Those who can't do, teach.
Those who can't teach, administrate... and pay themselves handsomely for it!"
:P

Wait, I loved teaching, but I am supposed to be paid handsomely for being more administrative now? I need to talk to my dean.

[Mick]

I thought it was:

"Those who can, do.  Those who can't, teach.  Those who are too pathetically incompetent to either 'do' or 'teach' criticize."  Think Skip Bayless.

[Mick]

I thought it was:

"Those who can, do.  Those who can't, teach.  Those who are too pathetically incompetent to either 'do' or 'teach' criticize."  Think Skip Bayless.

[stupac2]

I thought it was, "Those who can't teach, teach gym."

Funny, my brother teaches gym. I should pass that along.

[stupac2]

I thought it was, "Those who can't teach, teach gym."

Funny, my brother teaches gym. I should pass that along.

[yvonne]

Evelyn Lewis taught gym at Willingboro High School. I dare say she taught quite a few women a bit more than that over the years. She and her husband, Bill, were role models to hundreds.

[yvonne]

Evelyn Lewis taught gym at Willingboro High School. I dare say she taught quite a few women a bit more than that over the years. She and her husband, Bill, were role models to hundreds.

[Leftcoast]

And, if I remember rightly, mother and father to Olympians Carl and Carol Lewis.  Correct?

[Leftcoast]

And, if I remember rightly, mother and father to Olympians Carl and Carol Lewis.  Correct?