Father biondi - vote of no confidence

[sludevil]

Maybe I am hearing from the wrong people but....

What I'm hearing is that a number of the disgruntled faculty are the same types who complain about the funding that goes to athletics. I don't know that we should assume that any alternative to Biondi will suddenly be much better for the university or the athletic department in particular. Maybe they would be, but it is just as likely they wouldn't.

We are certainly not "all on this together" as these professors are looking out for themselves first and foremost. The quotes from the disgruntled ex-prof in the Riverfront Times pretty much prove that. (For those that missed it, he basically said he wanted what was best for the university, and that just happened to involve him getting a promotion and raise.)

One wonders how much either side of the debate is ready for the environment the university will be operating in down the line.

When technologists are asked, "What will be the next industry disrupted and thrown on its head by technology?" They answer, "Higher education."

When financial analysts and economist are asked about the next industry facing a bubble bursting, they answer, "Higher education."

By my count, there were 609 faculty members who expressed a negative opinion of Biondi in the recent survey. That seems like more than just a few malcontents. Though the students (through SGA) also put forth an overwhelming vote of no confidence against Biondi.

Check out the SLU Students for No Confidence Facebook page - it contains a good breakdown and discussion of the issues, and is frequented by plenty of faculty, students, and alumni. I'd say the case against Biondi is pretty compelling at this point.

[Bobby Metzinger]

Maybe I am hearing from the wrong people but....

What I'm hearing is that a number of the disgruntled faculty are the same types who complain about the funding that goes to athletics. I don't know that we should assume that any alternative to Biondi will suddenly be much better for the university or the athletic department in particular. Maybe they would be, but it is just as likely they wouldn't.

We are certainly not "all on this together" as these professors are looking out for themselves first and foremost. The quotes from the disgruntled ex-prof in the Riverfront Times pretty much prove that. (For those that missed it, he basically said he wanted what was best for the university, and that just happened to involve him getting a promotion and raise.)

One wonders how much either side of the debate is ready for the environment the university will be operating in down the line.

When technologists are asked, "What will be the next industry disrupted and thrown on its head by technology?" They answer, "Higher education."

When financial analysts and economist are asked about the next industry facing a bubble bursting, they answer, "Higher education."

Those people should be smart enough to know that major college athletics are SLU's cash crop. Without a revenue-generator like basketball at SLU, many of the academic programs we have at SLU go by the wayside. It's not like our world-renowned forensics or model UN team will provide resources to keep these prof's egos afloat.

[milwaukeebill]

Maybe I am hearing from the wrong people but....

What I'm hearing is that a number of the disgruntled faculty are the same types who complain about the funding that goes to athletics. I don't know that we should assume that any alternative to Biondi will suddenly be much better for the university or the athletic department in particular. Maybe they would be, but it is just as likely they wouldn't.

We are certainly not "all on this together" as these professors are looking out for themselves first and foremost. The quotes from the disgruntled ex-prof in the Riverfront Times pretty much prove that. (For those that missed it, he basically said he wanted what was best for the university, and that just happened to involve him getting a promotion and raise.)

One wonders how much either side of the debate is ready for the environment the university will be operating in down the line.

When technologists are asked, "What will be the next industry disrupted and thrown on its head by technology?" They answer, "Higher education."

When financial analysts and economist are asked about the next industry facing a bubble bursting, they answer, "Higher education."

I usually try to avoid predictions about what the next "bubble" is. If everyone is so smart and knows what the bubble is before it comes wouldn't that mean there isn't a bubble? It goes against the logic of a bubble.

[WestCoastBilliken]

I usually try to avoid predictions about what the next "bubble" is. If everyone is so smart and knows what the bubble is before it comes wouldn't that mean there isn't a bubble? It goes against the logic of a bubble.

There is over $1 TRILLION DOLLARS in outstanding student loans. This is debt held by a bunch of 20 something year olds, many with mortgage house debt before they even get their first jobs. When my parents generation graduated college with zero debt they were able to buy a house or start a business, then they got the bright idea that education is a Human Right and it should be given to everyone regardless of ability.

Now here we are... clock is ticking... if there was anyway to short student loan debt I am there. Wages and jobs have been more or less stagnant, yet education costs keep rising by 3-4-5-6-8-10% a year.

[milwaukeebill]

There is over $1 TRILLION DOLLARS in outstanding student loans. This is debt held by a bunch of 20 something year olds, many with mortgage house debt before they even get their first jobs. When my parents generation graduated college with zero debt they were able to buy a house or start a business, then they got the bright idea that education is a Human Right and it should be given to everyone regardless of ability.

Now here we are... clock is ticking... if there was anyway to short student loan debt I am there. Wages and jobs have been more or less stagnant, yet education costs keep rising by 3-4-5-6-8-10% a year.

I don't want to get this thread too far off track.

I will say culture and finance has changed considerably since your parents generation. A lot of kids don't have mortgages - a lot of kids are "boomerang" kids. The amount/complexity of financial instruments today is unparalleled to even 20 years ago, allowing people to put off payments or get cash flow form certain assets. And that trillion dollar figure - lets not forget that we are now dividing that number by way more people then we used to.

I haven't researched the idea, but I'm sure someone is packaging student loans like they did mortgages, so I bet you could short it if you wanted. That or take out some sort of insurance on a security like that.

Honestly, I have no idea if we are in an "education bubble". You certainly may be right that we are.

[AlumniFan]

I usually try to avoid predictions about what the next "bubble" is. If everyone is so smart and knows what the bubble is before it comes wouldn't that mean there isn't a bubble? It goes against the logic of a bubble.

People saw the tech bubble coming in the late '90s. They saw the housing bubble coming in the mid-2000's. Just because you see it coming doesn't mean you avoid it. Knowing a bubble is coming is not against the "logic" of a bubble.

Student loans are going to be a challenge. The CDS debacle is reasonably fresh in everyone's minds so the likelihood of a similar derivative securitization of the student loans outstanding with the same mechanism as sub-prime mortgages is unlikely. Of course, there may be a different way to let the government screw it up - never doubt the federal government's historically documented ability to screw things up economically.

I am not sure when your parent's generation was, but I graduated from college in the 1980's and had to use loans, in addition to scholarships, grant money (my family qualified for plenty of financial aid fortunately...depending upon how you look at it), and working 30+ hours a week to fund my education. I paid off my loans BEFORE I bought my first house.

If current graduates exercise financially responsible practices, they will be fine. If not...

I have hired plenty of 20-somethings that are doing very, very well despite having to pay down student loans. They did very well in school, had majors that are in demand, and generally worked throughout their 3 or 4 years of college in internships or other jobs that related to their field of study. For those who pursued fun and interesting majors, only worked part time in jobs that didn't complement their education, and didn't earn scholarships, they are the ones who struggle. It is definitely tougher now than it was 10 and 20 years ago, but it is also a function of the choices people make.

By the way, that trillion dollars in student loans mentioned above is only a fraction of the newly proposed ANNUAL budget.

Finally, tuition, donations, income from investments, and endowment growth absolutely DWARF money coming from the athletic programs. Anyone who says that college athletics are a major source of cash for the University is either terribly misinformed or distorting the facts.

[sludevil]

For those who pursued fun and interesting majors, only worked part time in jobs that didn't complement their education, and didn't earn scholarships, they are the ones who struggle. It is definitely tougher now than it was 10 and 20 years ago, but it is also a function of the choices people make.

The problem is that these people represent the majority. For every bio or mechanical engineering major, there's 10 liberal arts majors. And they're not just getting a horribly impractical education - they're paying dearly for it. Hence the bubble. Colleges are booming, tuition costs are shooting up, but kids are still getting the same liberal arts educations. And, mind you, this typically isn't debt you can discharge in bankruptcy. So, in increasing numbers, these kids are stuck with tons of debt, poor job prospects, and an otherwise empty degree. (Unfortunately, the solution is often to throw good money after bad - by getting a graduate degree.)

Of course, I don't think your assessment is entirely fair, either. The cost of a college education is exponentially higher than it was 20 years ago - which makes it exponentially more difficult to pay off, and which can drastically impact the course of your life. Is it dumb to take out $100k for a political science degree? Absolutely. But we're talking about your dumb teenage/young adult choices following you for a long, long time. And that choice is a lot easier to make, too, when your adult support system (parents, counselors, teachers) are all pushing you in that direction (and affirming your decisions).

It's just a bad situation. And I imagine something will give sooner than later, because it's also completely unsustainable.

[AlumniFan]

The problem is that these people represent the majority. For every bio or mechanical engineering major, there's 10 liberal arts majors. And they're not just getting a horribly impractical education - they're paying dearly for it. Hence the bubble. Colleges are booming, tuition costs are shooting up, but kids are still getting the same liberal arts educations. And, mind you, this typically isn't debt you can discharge in bankruptcy. So, in increasing numbers, these kids are stuck with tons of debt, poor job prospects, and an otherwise empty degree. (Unfortunately, the solution is often to throw good money after bad - by getting a graduate degree.)

Of course, I don't think your assessment is entirely fair, either. The cost of a college education is exponentially higher than it was 20 years ago - which makes it exponentially more difficult to pay off, and which can drastically impact the course of your life. Is it dumb to take out $100k for a political science degree? Absolutely. But we're talking about your dumb teenage/young adult choices following you for a long, long time. And that choice is a lot easier to make, too, when your adult support system (parents, counselors, teachers) are all pushing you in that direction (and affirming your decisions).

It's just a bad situation. And I imagine something will give sooner than later, because it's also completely unsustainable.

Agreed - well put. We have a saying in my family: "Good decisions, good life. Bad decisions bad life."

*technically speaking, an exponential increase in college tuition from when I went to SLU would mean tuitions at $52,250,000 - thank God that didn't happen!!! But, yes, I get your point; tuitions have increased at a dramatic rate inconsistent with the general inflation rate.

[sludevil]

Agreed - well put. We have a saying in my family: "Good decisions, good life. Bad decisions bad life."

*technically speaking, an exponential increase in college tuition from when I went to SLU would mean tuitions at $52,250,000 - thank God that didn't happen!!! But, yes, I get your point; tuitions have increased at a dramatic rate inconsistent with the general inflation rate.

Hell, I'm paying slightly more than that at my current school (for post-graduate education). On second thought, maybe I'm part of the problem.

(Really, though, it is completely ridiculous. And the system is perpetuated by free government money and a culture that pushes everyone towards higher education. And also by suckers like me who apparently feel that a year of education is worth a well-equipped C-Class, give or take the heated seats.)

[billikendave]

Add universities who cash the checks but do little to provide guidance to students about life after college. What are you going to do with this degree. They honestly say that is not their job. They say the university's job is to educate and not provide job training.

[ARon]

Add universities who cash the checks but do little to provide guidance to students about life after college. What are you going to do with this degree. They honestly say that is not their job. They say the university's job is to educate and not provide job training.

Agreed, notice how few schools (SLU included) quote "% of students with jobs at graduation" anymore?

I can only speak for the business school during the early 2000s, but the career counseling office there was an utter joke in my experience.

[Clock_Tower]

People saw the tech bubble coming in the late '90s. They saw the housing bubble coming in the mid-2000's. Just because you see it coming doesn't mean you avoid it. Knowing a bubble is coming is not against the "logic" of a bubble.

Student loans are going to be a challenge. The CDS debacle is reasonably fresh in everyone's minds so the likelihood of a similar derivative securitization of the student loans outstanding with the same mechanism as sub-prime mortgages is unlikely. Of course, there may be a different way to let the government screw it up - never doubt the federal government's historically documented ability to screw things up economically.

I am not sure when your parent's generation was, but I graduated from college in the 1980's and had to use loans, in addition to scholarships, grant money (my family qualified for plenty of financial aid fortunately...depending upon how you look at it), and working 30+ hours a week to fund my education. I paid off my loans BEFORE I bought my first house.

If current graduates exercise financially responsible practices, they will be fine. If not...

I have hired plenty of 20-somethings that are doing very, very well despite having to pay down student loans. They did very well in school, had majors that are in demand, and generally worked throughout their 3 or 4 years of college in internships or other jobs that related to their field of study. For those who pursued fun and interesting majors, only worked part time in jobs that didn't complement their education, and didn't earn scholarships, they are the ones who struggle. It is definitely tougher now than it was 10 and 20 years ago, but it is also a function of the choices people make.

By the way, that trillion dollars in student loans mentioned above is only a fraction of the newly proposed ANNUAL budget.

Finally, tuition, donations, income from investments, and endowment growth absolutely DWARF money coming from the athletic programs. Anyone who says that college athletics are a major source of cash for the University is either terribly misinformed or distorting the facts.

No. Most people are NOT saying that athletics are a major source of cash in the sense that athletics will annually bring in cash to not only support themselves but also other parts of the University. You're right, most athletic programs are money losers (non-revenue sports of baseball, cross-country, track, golf, tennis, and the women's sports), most football programs lose money, some soccer programs lose money or barely pay for theselves. The only money making program is men's basketball which can largely pays the bills for the other athletic programs - but not to the University at large.

Instead, most people are saying that athletics is a major source of advertising, public relations, recruitment of new students and a fundraising mechanism to keep in touch with alums and to then tap them for donations. Success in athletics leads to a spike in student enrollment and donations to the school. Assuming a spike in enrollment and donations and assuming the University would spend a comparable amount of money to equalize the advertising and public relations, then if the savings of expenditures on the advertising and pubilc relations and the additional student tuition fees and donations are truly able to be tracked and accounted for, then maybe athletics will be deemed more of a source of cash.

[milwaukeebill]

I am not sure when your parent's generation was, but I graduated from college in the 1980's and had to use loans, in addition to scholarships, grant money (my family qualified for plenty of financial aid fortunately...depending upon how you look at it), and working 30+ hours a week to fund my education. I paid off my loans BEFORE I bought my first house.

If current graduates exercise financially responsible practices, they will be fine. If not...

I have hired plenty of 20-somethings that are doing very, very well despite having to pay down student loans. They did very well in school, had majors that are in demand, and generally worked throughout their 3 or 4 years of college in internships or other jobs that related to their field of study. For those who pursued fun and interesting majors, only worked part time in jobs that didn't complement their education, and didn't earn scholarships, they are the ones who struggle. It is definitely tougher now than it was 10 and 20 years ago, but it is also a function of the choices people make.

I just graduated very recently so I guess my perspective is really based on what I see from my peers and myself.

Whats funny is when you describe the two groups of 20-somethings you see. I consider myself to be part of the latter group. I pursued a degree I really enjoyed, didn't look at job prospects when I chose it, only worked part time jobs in college that had nothing to do with my major. I had a couple scholarships that paid for about half of tuition. I did land an internship for my major but it was in the middle of my last semester at college (maybe 3 months before graduation). I probably went out a lot and spent my money completely recklessly - didn't save a dime in college.

But as opposed to a lot of kids, I never moved back with my parents, got a great job in my major's field; never took money for help from my parents and am paying down my student loans faster than they can bill me.

I guess all I'm saying is a lot of people major in stupid things and make stupid decisions in college - that doesn't necessarily mean they are set up to fail in life.

BTW - I majored in finance, I have no idea why I think finance is fun.

[JMM28]

Business degrees are a little different than a degree in the history of art prior to 1842.

[AlumniFan]

I just graduated very recently so I guess my perspective is really based on what I see from my peers and myself.

Whats funny is when you describe the two groups of 20-somethings you see. I consider myself to be part of the latter group. I pursued a degree I really enjoyed, didn't look at job prospects when I chose it, only worked part time jobs in college that had nothing to do with my major. I had a couple scholarships that paid for about half of tuition. I did land an internship for my major but it was in the middle of my last semester at college (maybe 3 months before graduation). I probably went out a lot and spent my money completely recklessly - didn't save a dime in college.

But as opposed to a lot of kids, I never moved back with my parents, got a great job in my major's field; never took money for help from my parents and am paying down my student loans faster than they can bill me.

I guess all I'm saying is a lot of people major in stupid things and make stupid decisions in college - that doesn't necessarily mean they are set up to fail in life.

BTW - I majored in finance, I have no idea why I think finance is fun.

1. Finance IS fun. And, that's a good major with a lot of prospective employment opportunities.

2. I am truly happy to hear you are having success. That is a testament to you and to what you learned.

3. I was actually pretty happy when my sons moved back in with us for awhile - it was a lot of fun, but I admire you for going it on your own.

P.S. Finance was one of my majors and I was lucky enough to really enjoy it too (and still do).

[BANG! He Got It!]

Brouster resigning as chairman of the board

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/blog/2013/04/brouster-resigns-as-board-chairman-at.html?ana=twt

[AlumniFan]

Brouster resigning as chairman of the board

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/blog/2013/04/brouster-resigns-as-board-chairman-at.html?ana=twt

Already being discussed over in the thread on "Letter writing".

[jimbofive]

1. Finance IS fun. And, that's a good major with a lot of prospective employment opportunities.

2. I am truly happy to hear you are having success. That is a testament to you and to what you learned.

3. I was actually pretty happy when my sons moved back in with us for awhile - it was a lot of fun, but I admire you for going it on your own.

P.S. Finance was one of my majors and I was lucky enough to really enjoy it too (and still do).

I was a finance major at SLU. Switched from Computer Science because the program was a disaster and I was a stoner and it was getting really hard. Finished in four years, regardless and parlayed it into a sh!tty accounting job. Then I initiativized (of course it's not a word) my way into a DB analyst/developer job. Now I'm a software engineer, living comfortably. I implore everyone to steer the fuok clear of liberal arts degrees. If you don't have a trust fund windfall, you're in for a rude awakening.

[bomble]

I implore everyone to steer the fuok clear of liberal arts degrees. If you don't have a trust fund windfall, you're in for a rude awakening.

Prescient advice indeed.

[WestCoastBilliken]

I don't want to get this thread too far off track.

I will say culture and finance has changed considerably since your parents generation. A lot of kids don't have mortgages - a lot of kids are "boomerang" kids. The amount/complexity of financial instruments today is unparalleled to even 20 years ago, allowing people to put off payments or get cash flow form certain assets. And that trillion dollar figure - lets not forget that we are now dividing that number by way more people then we used to.

I haven't researched the idea, but I'm sure someone is packaging student loans like they did mortgages, so I bet you could short it if you wanted. That or take out some sort of insurance on a security like that.

Honestly, I have no idea if we are in an "education bubble". You certainly may be right that we are.

By mortgage size debt, I meant the student loans they are coming out of University with are the size of a real estate mortgage in most places of the country. My parents generation could buy a home out of college or invest in a business, as they didn't have this type of debt... today, kids cant do any of that because they are trying to pay off $50,000 or $100,000 in student debt at 24 years old.