Malloy Presents Details of $2 Billion Plan For UConn

[upstater]

One plug is a bunch of low voltage wires that can't be run in series like your average 120 volt duplex outlet. So each Internet jack has its own wire that wire goes to a service. Does the service have space to provide another jack? If not you need new service. New service could mean the utility bring in a whole new line etc etc

You're forgetting all the tubes. Intertubes.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Not true. Spending is down relative to inflation. People confused the exponential rise in tuition with a rise in spending. It's just not the case.

I didn't say anything about spending vis-a-vis inflation.

 

[Alum86]

What's next? Airborne and Ranger school theough Correspondence course, or through the Internet? AlQueda and the Chinese are laughing at us.
Now off to the Cesspool. Never been there. Can I drown HCPP THERE?

 

[upstater]

I didn't say anything about spending vis-a-vis inflation.

Well then what's the point? If you're expenditures rise slower than inflation, you're keeping costs down, no?

 

[Alum86]

We all want UConn to succeed. However, this Obama plant Malloy wanting to spend 2B is absolutely insane. Too much money and I do not support it. Dorms in Stamford? that, unless they can have a football team by '14 to play at the RENT.
Can I be the first to start a plan to nickname them.? They cannot be Huskies anymore if they have dorms, and assumably 4 yr degrees.
How about UC-Stamford fighting hedge funds? Or as they will call them in Shippan, the Fighti' Hedgies.

 

[Dann]

Look, suck it up, Nancy - HuskyFanDan still gets his on dial-up, so you can make do.

sad but true. i mow the grass with a goat also.

 

[huskymedic]

sad but true. i mow the grass with a goat also.

As long as that's all you do with the goat...

 

[SAMCRO]

sad but true. i mow the grass with a goat also.

Mowing the grass...Is that what the kids are calling it these days?

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Well then what's the point? If you're expenditures rise slower than inflation, you're keeping costs down, no?

Not enough information to conclude whether costs are being kept down. What's the surrogate for inflation? Handy Whitman? Does the inflation surrogate approximate the goods and services reflected in university costs closely enough for a comparison using it to be meaningful. You, yourself, have mentioned the form of indentured servitude by which lectures are delivered as one of the means universities use to contain costs. Is it a good idea to compare costs calculated on market based wages to a model where wage costs are arrived at by a different method? When I was a kid, the farmer who employed me was permitted to pay seasonal help less that mimimum wage. Was he doing a better job of keeping labor costs low than the people at the swimming pool who were required to pay minimum wage?

What is the time period of the comparison? A year? Fifty years? What's the rationale for using that particular timeframe? Were there anomolies in the inflation surrogate or university spending during the period that might lead to a less tenable conclusions if corrected for? Do trucking companies do a worse job controling costs during OPEC manipulations than lumber mills?

Of course none of that has anything to do with my original post which was that savings realized in one area can be more than offset by spending elsewhere.

FWIW, it's good to hear about the effectiveness of higher education cost containment efforts. To be candid, I doubt I would have guessed that college spending growth trailed inflation.

 

[junglehusky]

We all want UConn to succeed. However, this Obama plant Malloy wanting to spend 2B is absolutely insane. Too much money and I do not support it. Dorms in Stamford? that, unless they can have a football team by '14 to play at the RENT.

You may not be aware, but we live in a world where if you want to have nice things, you have to pay for them. You can have UConn be successful, or you can have low taxes and small government, but you can't have both. Unless Bill Gates suddenly becomes a UConn fan.

 

[upstater]

Not enough information to conclude whether costs are being kept down. What's the surrogate for inflation? Handy Whitman? Does the inflation surrogate approximate the goods and services reflected in university costs closely enough for a comparison using it to be meaningful. You, yourself, have mentioned the form of indentured servitude by which lectures are delivered as one of the means universities use to contain costs. Is it a good idea to compare costs calculated on market based wages to a model where wage costs are arrived at by a different method? When I was a kid, the farmer who employed me was permitted to pay seasonal help less that mimimum wage. Was he doing a better job of keeping labor costs low than the people at the swimming pool who were required to pay minimum wage?

What is the time period of the comparison? A year? Fifty years? What's the rationale for using that particular timeframe? Were there anomolies in the inflation surrogate or university spending during the period that might lead to a less tenable conclusions if corrected for? Do trucking companies do a worse job controling costs during OPEC manipulations than lumber mills?

Of course none of that has anything to do with my original post which was that savings realized in one area can be more than offset by spending elsewhere.

FWIW, it's good to hear about the effectiveness of higher education cost containment efforts. To be candid, I doubt I would have guessed that college spending growth trailed inflation.

Just overall spending. The school I focused on in the report I read was Cal-Berkeley. The report showed the national numbers at top universities, so it wasn't a national study (it would be impossible to conduct such a thing with every single university out there. The study looked at about 100 state schools. I looked at Berkeley because it has had a 800% tuition increase in 20 years. Berkeley went from a 1.29B budget in 1989 to a 1.62B budget in 2010. State support went from $16,800 in 1989 in REAL dollars to its current $9,700 in REAL dollars. The interesting thing was that the drop in state support was almost exactly the same as the rise in tuition.

The move to part-time faculty simply offsets the rise in technology costs and health care costs. Administrative costs, which have risen obscenely and should be kept in check, are still well below 1% of the budget, so though they rose high above inflation, you can simply recalculate everything by offsetting that .5%-1% number to realize that admin. costs are only a small part of the problem. And admin. costs are largely a problem of increased compliance and especially the dreaded assessment.

 

[UConn9604]

Just to put this in perspective. Conn. used to be in the bottom 5th in terms of funding Higher Ed. It has risen all the way to the mid 20s and is closer to about 20 now. But when the measure is funding per $1,000 of per capita income, UConn drops right to around 35-40 again. In other words, spending according to the state's wealth.

Not trying to drag this into an argument for the Cesspool (where I refuse to wade), but our per capita income is always skewed by Fairfield County and some parts of western Hartford County. For example, something like 1.5% of the State's income taxpayers lives in Greenwich, but they pay over 13% of the State's income tax revenue. Looking at the State's per capita income as a metric and saying, "see? We should be spending more than we are," doesn't necessarily imply that you or I (assuming you're not one of those 1.5%) can afford to pay more in taxes to accommodate new State spending on higher education: it just means that some people in this State have really, really high incomes.

(A similar argument is, "Connecticut residents are only getting 70 cents back for every $1 they pay the federal government in taxes, so I must be getting shafted." That doesn't necessarily mean that you or I aren't getting our money's worth, it just means that the top end is paying a big, big amount to the IRS. The State's net return for the middle 98% of the population, taking away the richest and poorest 1%s, is probably on par with most of the rest of the country.)

Also, I think it's really a tenuous argument to tie State spending on higher education with money earned by people who generally don't take advantage of it. B isn't really a function of A.

Don't get me wrong - I am utterly thrilled by this plan because for once the State would be spending billions on things I like. It is, however, a legitimately significant expenditure that will make UConn stand out, not something that we should have been expected to do all along just because we have some rich people in the State.
(In my opinion.)

 

[Adios]

We need Greenwich football players and students to go to UConn. Very simple.

 

[upstater]

Not trying to drag this into an argument for the Cesspool (where I refuse to wade), but our per capita income is always skewed by Fairfield County and some parts of western Hartford County. For example, something like 1.5% of the State's income taxpayers lives in Greenwich, but they pay over 13% of the State's income tax revenue. Looking at the State's per capita income as a metric and saying, "see? We should be spending more than we are," doesn't necessarily imply that you or I (assuming you're not one of those 1.5%) can afford to pay more in taxes to accommodate new State spending on higher education: it just means that some people in this State have really, really high incomes.

(A similar argument is, "Connecticut residents are only getting 70 cents back for every $1 they pay the federal government in taxes, so I must be getting shafted." That doesn't necessarily mean that you or I aren't getting our money's worth, it just means that the top end is paying a big, big amount to the IRS. The State's net return for the middle 98% of the population, taking away the richest and poorest 1%s, is probably on par with most of the rest of the country.)

Also, I think it's really a tenuous argument to tie State spending on higher education with money earned by people who generally don't take advantage of it. B isn't really a function of A.

Don't get me wrong - I am utterly thrilled by this plan because for once the State would be spending billions on things I like. It is, however, a legitimately significant expenditure that will make UConn stand out, not something that we should have been expected to do all along just because we have some rich people in the State.
(In my opinion.)

In my post, though, I cut the pie two different ways. Per capita spending, and per capita as measure of income. In both instances, Conn. is not in the top 20.

 

[ruskin]

We all want UConn to succeed. However, this Obama plant Malloy wanting to spend 2B is absolutely insane.

Seconding Alum86. The Gov is about to give a budget speech knowing we're $1B-plus in the hole. Where in God's name does he think the money is coming from? I know this is an outdated notion, but whatever happened to the private sector doing R & D?

And calling BS about 'this investment should have been done 10 years ago.' UConn 2000 program pumped $1B plus into the school & the system. Lotsa people have short memories.

 

[RS9999X]

The internet will kill parts of higher ed
The first two years of general studies are vulnerable to be integrated into AP classes and Community College Courses. It's slowly happening with a common core and testing and common eCurriculum and the best presenters money can buy. The current internet model is a sham.

Sent from my Lumia 920 via Windows 8. Now bite me Apple Droids.

 

[RS9999X]

Lab simulations are highly effective.

Sent from my Lumia 920 via Windows 8. Now bite me Apple Droids.

 

[Doggie Style]

Seconding Alum86. The Gov is about to give a budget speech knowing we're $1B-plus in the hole. Where in God's name does he think the money is coming from? I know this is an outdated notion, but whatever happened to the private sector doing R & D?

And calling BS about 'this investment should have been done 10 years ago.' UConn 2000 program pumped $1B plus into the school & the system. Lotsa people have short memories.

I'm not sure who you are referring to when you say lots of people having short memories? The Uconn 2000 program was nothing short of an ESSENTIAL upgrade for the crumbling infrastructure of the Uconn Storrs Campus and subsequent branches. It was an investment that had to be made in order to grow and remain competitive, period. This was the ONLY way that Uconn had any shot at moving forward academically and to grow the sports programs as well. This next round of investment is going to put Uconn on the map for generations to come from an academic and research standpoint and allow us to maintain an identity far greater than that of just a basketball school. Just a question, are you happy being complacent about our current academic standing? Do you think we will just remain where we currently rank without further investment? I'm assuming you are a Uconn FB/Basketball fan or else you wouldnt be on this board, but how do you think those teams along with the others will fair long term here in the "land of the missfit toys" formally known as the Big East, if we don't make this investment for our future? You wont find any less of an advocate for CT Govt and its policies which continuously demonstrate fiscal irresponsibility than myself, but how do you expect us not to improve our current situation without aggressively implementing a plan to get us to the next level? Just a question.......

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Just overall spending. The school I focused on in the report I read was Cal-Berkeley. The report showed the national numbers at top universities, so it wasn't a national study (it would be impossible to conduct such a thing with every single university out there. The study looked at about 100 state schools. I looked at Berkeley because it has had a 800% tuition increase in 20 years. Berkeley went from a 1.29B budget in 1989 to a 1.62B budget in 2010. State support went from $16,800 in 1989 in REAL dollars to its current $9,700 in REAL dollars. The interesting thing was that the drop in state support was almost exactly the same as the rise in tuition.

The move to part-time faculty simply offsets the rise in technology costs and health care costs. Administrative costs, which have risen obscenely and should be kept in check, are still well below 1% of the budget, so though they rose high above inflation, you can simply recalculate everything by offsetting that .5%-1% number to realize that admin. costs are only a small part of the problem. And admin. costs are largely a problem of increased compliance and especially the dreaded assessment.

Wasn't the University of California system, for all intents and purposes, free for in-state students at one time? I've often wondered if that nominal tuition and the state's enormous population were responsible for all those Cal schools being able to be so selective which, in turn, led to the high academic quality for which they are now known and admired. Did the rise in tuition to better reflect the value of the product received come about because, in part at least, state officials worried that a court ruling (which may since have been overturned) granting a student who graduated from a school in another state the right to establish residence in California and qualify for (virtually) free tuition would open a flood of out of state students?

I hear you about the difficulty/impossibility of collecting data for a universe under study. Fortunately, sampling and the application of statistics have allowed us to make valid conclusions from a subset of the data (and me a decent living). That said, a sample of one (Cal-Berkeley) is skimpy in the extreme, although not completely unheard of. Years and years...and years ago, I offered rebuttal testimony in a public utility rate hearing case where the petitioner attempted to quantify risk (a proxy for required return on capital) from a sample of one company.

 

[gars44]

I'm not sure who you are referring to when you say lots of people having short memories? The Uconn 2000 program was nothing short of an ESSENTIAL upgrade for the crumbling infrastructure of the Uconn Storrs Campus and subsequent branches. It was an investment that had to be made in order to grow and remain competitive, period. This was the ONLY way that Uconn had any shot at moving forward academically and to grow the sports programs as well. This next round of investment is going to put Uconn on the map for generations to come from an academic and research standpoint and allow us to maintain an identity far greater than that of just a basketball school. Just a question, are you happy being complacent about our current academic standing? Do you think we will just remain where we currently rank without further investment? I'm assuming you are a Uconn FB/Basketball fan or else you wouldnt be on this board, but how do you think those teams along with the others will fair long term here in the "land of the missfit toys" formally known as the Big East, if we don't make this investment for our future? You wont find any less of an advocate for CT Govt and its policies which continuously demonstrate fiscal irresponsibility than myself, but how do you expect us not to improve our current situation without aggressively implementing a plan to get us to the next level? Just a question.......

Much to agree with here. My only disagreement is with the comment about fiscal irresponsibility. It is immensely difficult to run a state budget with everyone from every conceivable crevice wanting more and more and more. Every state is in the same predicament. As well as the nation. CT does a better than average job with its budget and services provided.

 

[ruskin]

I'm not sure who you are referring to when you say lots of people having short memories? The Uconn 2000 program was nothing short of an ESSENTIAL upgrade for the crumbling infrastructure of the Uconn Storrs Campus and subsequent branches. It was an investment that had to be made in order to grow and remain competitive, period. This was the ONLY way that Uconn had any shot at moving forward academically and to grow the sports programs as well. This next round of investment is going to put Uconn on the map for generations to come from an academic and research standpoint and allow us to maintain an identity far greater than that of just a basketball school. Just a question, are you happy being complacent about our current academic standing? Do you think we will just remain where we currently rank without further investment? I'm assuming you are a Uconn FB/Basketball fan or else you wouldnt be on this board, but how do you think those teams along with the others will fair long term here in the "land of the missfit toys" formally known as the Big East, if we don't make this investment for our future? You wont find any less of an advocate for CT Govt and its policies which continuously demonstrate fiscal irresponsibility than myself, but how do you expect us not to improve our current situation without aggressively implementing a plan to get us to the next level? Just a question.......

Good points all - my issue is that Malloy acts as if this is the UConn of 1990. We're a little closer to the level you and I want the school to reach than what is being portrayed. $2B seems a bit much. The $1B 'investment' in the last decade came when the state was running surpluses. The problem is so much money is being spent/wasted elsewhere (busway, anyone?) there's not much left for things that are truly necessary.

 

[gars44]

Good points all - my issue is that Malloy acts as if this is the UConn of 1990. We're a little closer to the level you and I want the school to reach than what is being portrayed. $2B seems a bit much. The $1B 'investment' in the last decade came when the state was running surpluses. The problem is so much money is being spent/wasted elsewhere (busway, anyone?) there's not much left for things that are truly necessary.

Busway is not a waste of money. I-84 in 10 years will be nearly impassable. It's clogged now. We will need mass transit.

 

[upstater]

Wasn't the University of California system, for all intents and purposes, free for in-state students at one time? I've often wondered if that nominal tuition and the state's enormous population were responsible for all those Cal schools being able to be so selective which, in turn, led to the high academic quality for which they are now known and admired. Did the rise in tuition to better reflect the value of the product received come about because, in part at least, state officials worried that a court ruling (which may since have been overturned) granting a student who graduated from a school in another state the right to establish residence in California and qualify for (virtually) free tuition would open a flood of out of state students?

I hear you about the difficulty/impossibility of collecting data for a universe under study. Fortunately, sampling and the application of statistics have allowed us to make valid conclusions from a subset of the data (and me a decent living). That said, a sample of one (Cal-Berkeley) is skimpy in the extreme, although not completely unheard of. Years and years...and years ago, I offered rebuttal testimony in a public utility rate hearing case where the petitioner attempted to quantify risk (a proxy for required return on capital) from a sample of one company.

It wasn't a sample of one. They did the study with about 100 schools. I'm just citing Berkeley because, outside of the institutions I've been affiliated with, I chose to look at them because they had the highest tuition rise in the nation. Public school tuitions have gone up 200-300% in that timeframe, what this means is hard to gauge since tuition was subsidized in the first place. In the same period, private school tuition has doubled, but when you look at actual cost per student, that has not doubled. So one of the reasons for the increase at private schools is the need-blind policy (i.e. redistributing 40% of tuition in the form of scholarship dollars), and this causes exponential increases of tuition the longer you keep to the policy. That's why some schools announced 10% tuition reductions last year, as they got rid of their need-blind admissions policies. You can hold tuition increases in check if you don't give scholarship money.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

It wasn't a sample of one. They did the study with about 100 schools. I'm just citing Berkeley because, outside of the institutions I've been affiliated with, I chose to look at them because they had the highest tuition rise in the nation. Public school tuitions have gone up 200-300% in that timeframe, what this means is hard to gauge since tuition was subsidized in the first place. In the same period, private school tuition has doubled, but when you look at actual cost per student, that has not doubled. So one of the reasons for the increase at private schools is the need-blind policy (i.e. redistributing 40% of tuition in the form of scholarship dollars), and this causes exponential increases of tuition the longer you keep to the policy. That's why some schools announced 10% tuition reductions last year, as they got rid of their need-blind admissions policies. You can hold tuition increases in check if you don't give scholarship money.

Thanks for your interesting and informative posts. The complexities involved in what you do are myriad and you've opened my eyes to just a few. I read an article or editorial (WSJ I think) about the role of the abundance of student loans plays in the rise of tuition. Do you have any insight about that?

BTW, I was I was just tweaking about that sample size of one.

 

[RS9999X]

Busway is not a waste of money. I-84 in 10 years will be nearly impassable. It's clogged now. We will need mass transit.

1) There isn't enough population growth to support that assertion
2) Putting the money into I-84 would reap more benefits