Today's WSJ - Article about Auburn and Spending

[mstateglfr]

Police. Parks. Schools. Roads.

I get all of those without paying a dime. It benefits ALL people relatively equally with a very clear standard.

police, parks, schools (high schools), roads, etc are not the same as colleges and universities. I know you know that but you can't admit it.

Everyone goes to high school and learns the main base curriculum. Public taxpayer money shouldn't be funding liberal arts degrees etc. If you want to make certain colleges publicly funded where they learn useful information or gain knowledge experience that can be used in the real world for the benefit of everyone? lets talk then but i bet you are completely against not letting a 2.0 gpa student who missed 20 days a year of high school get a gender studies degree.

Since multiple other posters have already pushed back on your absurd comments about public spending that does or doesn't benefit you, hopefully you can argue that insane position with them instead of me.

I just want to know if you have an issue with a 'liberal arts' degree because it has the word liberal in it. Dead serious, I suspect a lot of people who emotionally rant about the lack of value of a college degree and cite 'liberal arts' as proof are really just angry that the word liberal is in that degree.
It's the only thing I can think of for why you would call out those degrees as not worthy of public funding.
...and yet, people with LA degrees are productive members of society and business in a wide range of fields. Well that doesn't help your narrative!


I do appreciate that you quickly conceded on your initial hard line claim that taxes shouldn't go to help fund college. In just one post you went from that to 'well taxes shouldn't fund liberal arts degrees and should instead fund degrees that are useful'.
Haha, pain gonna pain every time. You can't make this stuff up.

 

[AROB44]

paindonthurt said:
Police. Parks. Schools. Roads.

I get all of those without paying a dime. It benefits ALL people relatively equally with a very clear standard.

stateu1 said:​

Huh? Please explain. Let me know exactly where your tax dollars go if not to these.



He probably has no idea how the economic system works if he thinks he gets anything from the government for free. Maybe no him, but someone (me included) is paying for them.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

Non-profit entities aren't supposed to save - they are meant to put that money to work.

I agree that they shouldn't overspend.

Overspending is part of what’s contributed to Birmingham-Southern’s woes. A previous president spent money on projects.

From: https://www.tuscaloosanews.com/stor...-southern-college-financial-woes/71488427007/

The college faces financial struggles that officials say have brought the school to the brink of closure. An al.com story in January said that a round of building that took place under David Pollick, president of the college from 2005 to 2010, combined with a decline in enrollment and the economic downturn of the Great Recession, eroded the school’s endowment, with the COVID-19 pandemic dealing an additional blow to the school.

 

[dorndawg]

If our public universities shouldn't receive public funds, why should the high schools?

Don't threaten 'em with a good time.*

 

[paindonthurt]

Non-profit entities aren't supposed to save - they are meant to put that money to work.

I agree that they shouldn't overspend.

I'm saying they should be more efficient with their money. Not save.

 

[paindonthurt]

Huh? Please explain. Let me know exactly where your tax dollars go if not to these.

I don't pay for police, parks, schools and roads outside of taxes.

If i want to go to university, i pay for tuition plus i pay for it in my taxes.

 

[paindonthurt]

Make up your mind

You say Birmingham-Southern shouldn’t be saved by the state of Alabama and at the same time you’re criticizing Auburn for being all about revenue and profit

Here’s the deal: All Academic Institutions (I’ll lump schools with colleges here) care about revenue and profit. A school that has money and is healthy is a school that people are interested in attending.

i'm not really criticizing auburn other than i don't think throwing money at it is the best bang for their buck. I'm saying i think they could have reached the level they are at now without spending quite as much money.

BUT if you show me where auburn has say better facilities than other schools who have spent similar money while maintaining a considerably lower tuition rate, i'd say they are doing pretty good. I'd need to compare it to others.

 

[Podgy]

I have 3 liberal arts degrees. I do well and pay quite a bit in taxes. I enjoy a good life. Publicly funded universities are one reason why Americans enjoy the highest standard of living in the world. We should be grateful for that. They helped create the American middle class. Anyway, the number of liberal arts majors is declining, in part because of the nonsense pushed by some loudmouth liberal arts profs. It's the administration, and non-revenue generating sports that are the most wasteful and have the worst ROI. Liberal arts profs are cheap and declining enrollment will take care of itself.

Anyway, government isn't a business and doesn't need to be run like one. Of course, it should work to eliminate wasteful spending but good luck getting politicians to do anything about that other than complain.

I also don't look around at America, or the world, and pick places to live or vacation in because they have limited governments concerned about ROI. I suspect that if you look at cities and states with the best standards of measure for a host of life outcomes, they might not be places with few public universities and governments run like businesses. Imagine if NYC decided the ROI for Central Park would improve if they sold it to private investors to build condos. I like Central Park, and other parks, because they add to a our quality of life. So do universities.

 

[stateu1]

Non-profit entities aren't supposed to save - they are meant to put that money to work.

I agree that they shouldn't overspend.

Non profits are absolutely supposed to save. They must have reserves in case contributions dry up, for capital improvements and many other reason.

 

[paindonthurt]

Since multiple other posters have already pushed back on your absurd comments about public spending that does or doesn't benefit you, hopefully you can argue that insane position with them instead of me.

I just want to know if you have an issue with a 'liberal arts' degree because it has the word liberal in it. Dead serious, I suspect a lot of people who emotionally rant about the lack of value of a college degree and cite 'liberal arts' as proof are really just angry that the word liberal is in that degree.
It's the only thing I can think of for why you would call out those degrees as not worthy of public funding.
...and yet, people with LA degrees are productive members of society and business in a wide range of fields. Well that doesn't help your narrative!


I do appreciate that you quickly conceded on your initial hard line claim that taxes shouldn't go to help fund college. In just one post you went from that to 'well taxes shouldn't fund liberal arts degrees and should instead fund degrees that are useful'.
Haha, pain gonna pain every time. You can't make this stuff up.

I have an issue with anyone getting public tax dollars that isn't a direct benefit to the population as a whole.

I never said public spending didn't benefit me.
I absolutely am saying spending public money on university degrees such as gender studies, liberal arts, literature, etc. doesn't benefit me or anyone for that matter when it comes to NEEDS. Not wants but needs.

 

[paindonthurt]

He probably has no idea how the economic system works if he thinks he gets anything from the government for free. Maybe no him, but someone (me included) is paying for them. ​

I didn't say this or imply it. I might have typed something that wasn't clear b/c i'm more of a math guy than a writer.

 

[paindonthurt]

I have 3 liberal arts degrees. I do well and pay quite a bit in taxes. I enjoy a good life. Publicly funded universities are one reason why Americans enjoy the highest standard of living in the world. We should be grateful for that. They helped create the American middle class. Anyway, the number of liberal arts majors is declining, in part because of the nonsense pushed by some loudmouth liberal arts profs. It's the administration, and non-revenue generating sports that are the most wasteful and have the worst ROI. Liberal arts profs are cheap and declining enrollment will take care of itself.

I'd probably change my tune on liberal arts if there was a way to fix this issue.

Anyway, government isn't a business and doesn't need to be run like one. Of course, it should work to eliminate wasteful spending but good luck getting politicians to do anything about that other than complain.

It needs to be ran like one when it comes to a budget. Get the most bang for your buck. If there is money left over at the end of the year, it should go to a very transparent rainy day fund or rolled over to the next years tax budget and credits given to tax payers proportionate to what they paid in.

I also don't look around at America, or the world, and pick places to live or vacation in because they have limited governments concerned about ROI. I suspect that if you look at cities and states with the best standards of measure for a host of life outcomes, they might not be places with few public universities and governments run like businesses. Imagine if NYC decided the ROI for Central Park would improve if they sold it to private investors to build condos. I like Central Park, and other parks, because they add to a our quality of life. So do universities.

I'm not suggesting change the use of central park or a university. But, if auburn spends, $100 million and builds the same university infrastructure that virginia built for say $125 million and auburns tuition only goes up 10% while virginias goes up 25% then auburn is getting a much better ROI for their money than Virginia. This is obviously just a made up example but the point is very valid. The Auburns of the world should be rewarded for such over the Virginias of the world.

 

[Crazy Cotton]

you could write a book on all this. But State needs to go all in like Auburn did and rebuild many many buildings on that campus. Especially with the bell cow, engineering.

The whole refurbishment mentality needs to stop and start rethinking where and how to replace, rebuild. Old Main, Charles Lee, Rula and Duff are steps in the right direction. Do more of that and less of "up grades" (hump, carpenter, McCain, McCool etc)

However I have a feeling State just doesn't have the donors for many projects.

Auburn didn't have the donors either, as the article notes all those upgrades created an enormous debt service responsibility for them. The states don't fund higher ed like they used to, so servicing the debt is tuition driven for everybody, including Auburn.

If your enrollment drops, your retention drops, or the discount rate on tuition increases, you don't have the cash to pay your debt. That is starting to happen to publics who are stagnating in enrollment and are having to entice students with higher tuition discounts. See West Virginia for a prime example.

Somebody brought up Birmingham Southern, which is now circling the drain. They did this 10 years ago - borrowed a ton to spend on new dorms, student center, etc. saddling them with a huge debt. Enrollment went down by 1/3 in the meantime.

I like State's prudent approach.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

Non profits are absolutely supposed to save. They must have reserves in case contributions dry up, for capital improvements and many other reason.

Understand, but that's not the spirit of my comment. Colleges have endowments and such, so I get that. Point is, they don't function like a for profit private business where they pay out stockholders with profit. So the whole 'stay way under budget' thing doesn't really apply. The money in a non-profit is meant to be used to further the non-profit's mission, and donations usually have to be spent on what the donator wants.

Obviously basic fiscal responsibility always applies to everything.

 

[StumpNewGround]

Yeah, that’s a sure winner…

You picked the wrong school. The one you’re looking for is located in Oxford.

 

[Podgy]

I'd probably change my tune on liberal arts if there was a way to fix this issue.

It needs to be ran like one when it comes to a budget. Get the most bang for your buck. If there is money left over at the end of the year, it should go to a very transparent rainy day fund or rolled over to the next years tax budget and credits given to tax payers proportionate to what they paid in.

That's not how governments work otherwise we'd ditch all of our support for the elderly, especially women because they live much longer than men, that just keeps many of them alive. Medicare and social security are expensive. Good luck asking the elderly to pay more for their welfare. At the federal level, the last president added almost $8 trillion to the national debt and the current one may add more. Americans don't want their tuition, I mean taxes, to go up but neither do they want services to decrease.

 

[Mr. Cook]

But they really shouldn't be about revenue/profit.

Growth? sure, but education and really most things should be done where they get the best bang for the buck.

Private or stock owned businesses that are successful long term do this very well. For some reason we run government agencies completely backwards.

"Revenue" and "profit" are not the same. Ultimately, it has to be about revenue or nothing happens at all. Public universities have a "not-for-profit" tax status, so "profit" is not the motivation. However, operating in a deficit is not a place a university wants to consistently be, either.

I'm not sure how you jump to juxtaposing private businesses and government agencies. These are not interchangeable components.

 

[Mr. Cook]

Somebody brought up Birmingham Southern, which is now circling the drain. They did this 10 years ago - borrowed a ton to spend on new dorms, student center, etc. saddling them with a huge debt. Enrollment went down by 1/3 in the meantime.

B'Ham Southern is also a private liberal arts college. Sounds like the investment strategy did not pay off.

 

[Mr. Cook]

I hope the state doesn't bail them out. If they do, they should put restrictions on hiring and should force a certain amount of layoffs.

Same thought process with public high schools in mississippi and HBCUs. Really anyone who wants a goverment bail out.

Why would a state bail out a private liberal arts college?

The HBCU's are mostly public in Mississippi (Rust and Tougaloo are private)

 

[bannerdawg]

You picked the wrong school. The one you’re looking for is located in Oxford.

I’d agree with highlighting engineering. Agriculture will not attract elite talent.

 

[Mr. Cook]

Auburn didn't have the donors either, as the article notes all those upgrades created an enormous debt service responsibility for them. The states don't fund higher ed like they used to, so servicing the debt is tuition driven for everybody, including Auburn.

If your enrollment drops, your retention drops, or the discount rate on tuition increases, you don't have the cash to pay your debt. That is starting to happen to publics who are stagnating in enrollment and are having to entice students with higher tuition discounts. See West Virginia for a prime example.

Somebody brought up Birmingham Southern, which is now circling the drain. They did this 10 years ago - borrowed a ton to spend on new dorms, student center, etc. saddling them with a huge debt. Enrollment went down by 1/3 in the meantime.

I like State's prudent approach.

Well said. And woven in between your comments is the importance of servicing the debt, which includes good bond ratings. If a university's revenue model is flawed, then the risk of the financial distress rises.

At the heart of all of this commentary, the central issue is the plight of higher education in the United States. There are a lot of closings that have happened, will happen, and should continue to happen until the correct balance of the number and quality is reached. The demographics are changing quickly.

Personally speaking, I don't give a 17 about buildings per se --- show me the programs in demand that fuel the need for this infrastructure. Showing off infrastructure is to impress politicians so they can point to something tangible a cheer: "Progress!"

 

[RocketDawg]

Why would a state bail out a private liberal arts college?

The HBCU's are mostly public in Mississippi (Rust and Tougaloo are private)

I can't think of any logical reason why the state should bail them out. A student can get the same, or better, education at Alabama (any campus), Auburn, or any of the smaller schools that are publicly supported. Attending Birmingham Southern is just a status thing for some in the state with "old money"- but it's not even approaching the quality or reputation of most other private universities (the current crazy protests notwithstanding).

 

[Mr. Cook]

I can't think of any logical reason why the state should bail them out. A student can get the same, or better, education at Alabama (any campus), Auburn, or any of the smaller schools that are publicly supported. Attending Birmingham Southern is just a status thing for some in the state with "old money"- but it's not even approaching the quality or reputation of most other private universities (the current crazy protests notwithstanding)

I am in total agreement with you.

 

[Mr. Cook]

I’d agree with highlighting engineering. Agriculture will not attract elite talent.

Precision agriculture and autonomous agriculture will.

 

[paindonthurt]

That's not how governments work otherwise we'd ditch all of our support for the elderly, especially women because they live much longer than men, that just keeps many of them alive. Medicare and social security are expensive. Good luck asking the elderly to pay more for their welfare. At the federal level, the last president added almost $8 trillion to the national debt and the current one may add more. Americans don't want their tuition, I mean taxes, to go up but neither do they want services to decrease.

I don’t think you understand what I’m talking about.

Take the MDEQ FOR EXAMPLE ONLY. Their budget has historically gone up. They have 100 engineers doing what it really only takes 65 to do.

Take a department in the DEQ. They have $50,000 for equipment for the year. They do great with $35,000 but year end they have $15,000 extra so they spend it on things they don’t need otherwise next year they’ll only get $35,000.

They have no incentive to save money. That’s a bad system.

 

[paindonthurt]

"Revenue" and "profit" are not the same. Ultimately, it has to be about revenue or nothing happens at all. Public universities have a "not-for-profit" tax status, so "profit" is not the motivation. However, operating in a deficit is not a place a university wants to consistently be, either.

I'm not sure how you jump to juxtaposing private businesses and government agencies. These are not interchangeable components.

You can absolutely run a government agency like you do a business when it comes to being efficient with a budget. It’s not even remotely hard or complex.

instead of throwing money at a problem you think outside of the box for efficient and cost effective ways to get things done.

 

[BreckyBratt]

*Ahem*....that would be "THE Our State University"*****

That might actually get our NFL alumni to say their school name on tv***

 

[Mr. Cook]

You can absolutely run a government agency like you do a business when it comes to being efficient with a budget. It’s not even remotely hard or complex.

instead of throwing money at a problem you think outside of the box for efficient and cost effective ways to get things done.

What methods would you employ to promote efficiency (and within budget) to run a government agency like a for-profit business? Also, for good measure, make sure it's sustainable. Companies can dissolve. Governments can, too, but that would create the obvious instability for those who are governed.

While you are pondering that, what methods of efficiency would you propose that don't address the current maladies? (e.g. continuous improvement, quality control, automation, employee morale)

 

[Mr. Cook]

That might actually get our NFL alumni to say their school name on tv***

Haha! As long as they're not saying "Last Chance U"*****

 

[paindonthurt]

What methods would you employ to promote efficiency (and within budget) to run a government agency like a for-profit business? Also, for good measure, make sure it's sustainable. Companies can dissolve. Governments can, too, but that would create the obvious instability for those who are governed.

While you are pondering that, what methods of efficiency would you propose that don't address the current maladies? (e.g. continuous improvement, quality control, automation, employee morale)

How is the concept of don’t spend it just because you have it hard to understand or hard for government agencies to do?

That’s literally the simplest easiest thing to do.

Here’s another. When it requires 5 people, don’t use 10.

Here’s another hold people accountable for mistakes or lack of performance.

 

[StumpNewGround]

I’d agree with highlighting engineering. Agriculture will not attract elite talent.

So John Deere, Cat, Case IH, Fendt, Ford, don’t need elite talent? Not to mention Bayer, DuPont, Syngenta……..etc?

 

[mstateglfr]

How is the concept of don’t spend it just because you have it hard to understand or hard for government agencies to do?

That’s literally the simplest easiest thing to do.

Here’s another. When it requires 5 people, don’t use 10.

Here’s another hold people accountable for mistakes or lack of performance.

I agree that wasteful spending should be discouraged and reduced.

With that said, just gonna observe that this thread has gone to another level since you chimed in.
You slung some hot takes early on, then contradicted em, then clarified em in a goalpost moving sort of way, then walked em back, then dropped em entirely so you could instead complain about the same thing only applied differently.

Good stuff for sure.

 

[mstateglfr]

So John Deere, Cat, Case IH, Fendt, Ford, don’t need elite talent? Not to mention Bayer, DuPont, Syngenta……..etc?

Does 'Ag' at MSU include seed biology, engineering, gene editing, etc?
If it does, then yeah Ag attracts elite talent.

The biology and chemistry done at Stine Seed, Croplan, Bayer don't call it Monsanto, and more is 17ing amazing stuff.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

I don’t think you understand what I’m talking about.

Take the MDEQ FOR EXAMPLE ONLY. Their budget has historically gone up. They have 100 engineers doing what it really only takes 65 to do.

Take a department in the DEQ. They have $50,000 for equipment for the year. They do great with $35,000 but year end they have $15,000 extra so they spend it on things they don’t need otherwise next year they’ll only get $35,000.

They have no incentive to save money. That’s a bad system.

MDEQ is tasked with enforcing NEPA, which is a big national push, as it should be.

Government agencies aren’t nearly as wasteful as many people think they are.

Congress is. But the agencies themselves are just good people trying to earn a living. Good in, good out, or garbage in, garbage out.

Your anger is misplaced.

 

[paindonthurt]

I agree that wasteful spending should be discouraged and reduced.

With that said, just gonna observe that this thread has gone to another level since you chimed in.
You slung some hot takes early on, then contradicted em, then clarified em in a goalpost moving sort of way, then walked em back, then dropped em entirely so you could instead complain about the same thing only applied differently.

Good stuff for sure.

I didn’t really contradict anything.

I said Auburn could probably have done their thing with less money.

then someone posted that they may have done a lot of things other schools without raising tuition nearly as much. IF that is the case, then good for them.

They were only hot take to goat and the usual suspects like you.

 

[paindonthurt]

MDEQ is tasked with enforcing NEPA, which is a big national push, as it should be.

Government agencies aren’t nearly as wasteful as many people think they are.

Congress is. But the agencies themselves are just good people trying to earn a living. Good in, good out, or garbage in, garbage out.

Your anger is misplaced.

I worked at MDEQ for a year. Had a friend who worked there for 7 years.
They were wasteful. Just like many more.

Have they cleaned it up some since then? I doubt it bc I work for companies that need permits.

I also do personal stuff that requires government approval in some cases. I’ve been working with the Mississippi state department of health for about 12 weeks now. The engineer I hired had his portion done in about 2.5 to 3 weeks and that was only bc he was really busy.

I’ve been bird dogging the state engineer for about 6 weeks. 1 call 1 email and 1 text a week and haven’t heard one word from him. My engineer has done the same but more and even wrote snail mail letters.

 

[Mr. Cook]

Does 'Ag' at MSU include seed biology, engineering, gene editing, etc?
If it does, then yeah Ag attracts elite talent.

The biology and chemistry done at Stine Seed, Croplan, Bayer don't call it Monsanto, and more is 17ing amazing stuff.

I contend it does. The interesting part of agriculture is not just the breadth of disciplines but also the depth.

One of the areas I think is a hidden strength at MSU is the Dept. of Ag & Bio Engineering (ABE). In collaboration with CAVS, MSU has incredible core competencies.

 

[Mr. Cook]

I didn’t really contradict anything.

I said Auburn could probably have done their thing with less money.

then someone posted that they may have done a lot of things other schools without raising tuition nearly as much. IF that is the case, then good for them.

They were only hot take to goat and the usual suspects like you.

You have a myopic view of organizations and markets. There are 3 basic ingredients of which you can choose only 2: Speed, Cost, Quality

High Speed + High Quality = High Cost

So your argument is for more taxes, correct?

(Edited for my bad gammar)

 

[Maroon Eagle]

I didn’t really contradict anything.

I said Auburn could probably have done their thing with less money.

then someone posted that they may have done a lot of things other schools without raising tuition nearly as much. IF that is the case, then good for them.

They were only hot take to goat and the usual suspects like you.

You have a myopic view of organizations and markets. There are 3 basic ingredients of which you can choose only 2: Speed, Cost, Quality

High Speed + High Quality = High Cost

So you're argument is for more taxes, correct?

#gottaloveanMBApissingcontest

 

[Maroon Eagle]

I don’t think you understand what I’m talking about.

Take the MDEQ FOR EXAMPLE ONLY. Their budget has historically gone up. They have 100 engineers doing what it really only takes 65 to do.

Take a department in the DEQ. They have $50,000 for equipment for the year. They do great with $35,000 but year end they have $15,000 extra so they spend it on things they don’t need otherwise next year they’ll only get $35,000.

They have no incentive to save money. That’s a bad system.

I’m laughing at the part of your post where I’ve highlighted in Green because you say there are too many engineers yet you’ve said in another post later this afternoon that you’ve had much difficulty communicating with another engineer (I realize he might be in another department but still)…

The part I’ve highlighted in Orange I’m laughing because you automatically assume the extra money shouldn’t be spent — but those of us who have had much more experience in state agencies know that purchasing deadlines are often MONTHS earlier than the end of the fiscal year in order for materials and supplies to arrive before that time because they have to be on hand during the FY.

It makes me think that you lack understanding when it comes to agency purchasing procedures…

If you were in such an agency and tried doing what you suggest, that agency would have less materials and supplies needed to do its job and you would be transferred to something nondescript with no authority.