OT(?) Wasn't Brian going to run for U-M Regent?

Submitted by SteelCityMafia on

So obviously with the election tomorrow, I was spending some time reviewing my local ballot to make sure I knew each of the candidates and could make an intelligent decision on who to vote for. Upon inspection of Michigan regent choices, I remembered that when the Brandon/Shane Morris stuff went down Brian said he was going to run for regent next time they were up, which would be this year.

Was there any followup on this? I'd imagine that having a newborn kinda puts the brakes on that, but I was just wondering if there had been any update to that at all.  Not a big deal (and definitely not trying to throw him under the bus, as we all appreciate this work around here), but I was just curious.

MGoBoard
Recruiting

jmblue

November 7th, 2016 at 11:07 PM ^

Well, the crisis in the athletic department appears to be resolved, but another one remains very much urgent - the problem of keeping the university affordable for the average family to send their children there.

Regent Deitch's interview a few weeks ago was disappointing to me.  He touched briefly on this issue but seemingly wanted to blame rising tuition entirely on state appropriations (or the lack thereof) and didn't touch the issue of massively increasing administrative costs over the past two decades.

Joined: 11/07/2008

MGoPoints: 102860

clarkiefromcanada

November 8th, 2016 at 12:36 AM ^

It's not just Michigan though...the increase in administration costs is a disgrace across North America. The pressure that these costs place on tuition and fees is marked. Of course, administration and "leadership" capture the costs in a narrative about recruiting/keeping the best talent.

It's a thing even here in the socialist Great White North.

Joined: 11/20/2008

MGoPoints: 49257

EGD

November 8th, 2016 at 4:39 AM ^

Much of the problem among US colleges is attributed to the seeming arms races colleges engage in to attract students: building new gyms, modernizing dorms, having shopping mall-style student unions, big-time sports teams, and so forth. Administrative salaries are astronomical. And the fuel is federal student loans which are easy to get and virtually impossible to discharge. So it has many characteristics of the housing and tech bubbles which produced the last two significant recessions. It really is an outrageous situation, but the American government is too dysfunctional these days to comprehensively address it.

Joined: 09/16/2009

MGoPoints: 35199

dnak438

November 8th, 2016 at 2:01 PM ^

When you treat people like customers, they act like them. Fewer students are majoring in the arts & humanities, because when they're being charged crazy money for tuition and fees, they need to see an immediate economic return on their investment. It's sad, because the liberal arts (IMO, but I am a professor in the humanities at an R1 institution like Michigan) are an important part of our culture, they do train students in the skills that they need for all kinds of jobs, and so on, and so forth. But the arts and humanities are losing students to all kinds of majors, many of which prepare you no better for jobs and aren't what all students are truly passionate about.

Joined: 08/12/2009

MGoPoints: 7912

M-Dog

November 8th, 2016 at 1:34 AM ^

Last report I saw, Michigan only gets 8% of its money from the state.  And it's been that way for a long time.

There was talk about Michigan going de-facto private since they are barely a "state school".

No matter what the state does appropriations-wise, that is not what is driving Michigan tuition.

Joined: 07/06/2008

MGoPoints: 257517

jmblue

November 8th, 2016 at 9:01 AM ^

There is more to it than that, though.  We need to consider the size of the university's budget to put those figures in their proper context.

The university's expenditures have massively increased over that time, especially regarding administrative costs.  The number of administrative personnel employed by the university is much greater than it was 20 years ago.  If the state is unable/unwilling to increase the amount it apropriates to universities, does it make sense for them to dramatically increase their budgets anyway?  The school has chosen to go down that road and leave students to foot the costs.

 

 

 

Joined: 11/07/2008

MGoPoints: 102860

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

November 8th, 2016 at 9:28 AM ^

Completely agree - I find it rather disingenuous of university administrators to ramp up their spending at a pace they know is far outstripping the increase in support they're getting, and then blame state legislators for "reducing their support."

TBH, although there's never just one reason for any far-reaching problem like this, the single biggest reason by far is the availability of easy federal loans for students.  Insulated from the cost, students made college decisions based on almost any other factor, not the least of which was the gleaming palaces universities built to attract them.

Joined: 07/02/2008

MGoPoints: 41586

Brodie

November 8th, 2016 at 1:42 PM ^

There was a truly great piece in this Sunday's New York Times about this issue. It focused on Alabama and their recruitment efforts in California and the Northeast, how they are using merit scholarships and the name recognition from football to get big out of state tuition checks and how it is impacting their mission as a public flagship university (in state enrollment is now in the 40% range at Bama, and that is impacting black students disproportionately). There is a part where their provost grudgingly concedes that the university is being run like a business, with a big focus on the margins.  

Joined: 11/19/2008

MGoPoints: 10713

robpollard

November 8th, 2016 at 1:50 PM ^

This line is false: "...far outstripping the increase in support they're getting..."

There is no increase in support; in real terms, support has decreased by one-third. 

"In 1990, Michigan sent $1.06 billion to the state's public universities. If state spending on higher education had remained steady in 2014, when adjusted for inflation, universities would have received $1.92 billion. Instead, colleges got $1.26 billion, a 34 percent decrease."

http://bridgemi.com/2015/02/four-reasons-why-michigan-college-prices-ha…

Administration costs certainly have increased significantly -- that is b/c admins like to hire admins, so there is bloat and I would be fine with a 10% cut across the board -- but that's only a 10% cut out of 10% of total costs (i.e., 1% total).

But admin also increased because parents & students expect a *lot* more from universities these days. Parents used to just send their kids off to school and check in every once in a while; now they expect regular communication & support throughout the process, from application to graduation. Heck, just think of how many admissions U of M gets each year -- there were 55,000 last year; just 6 years ago it was 29,000. Someone has to review all those apps, communicate with all those students, etc.

Joined: 06/03/2009

MGoPoints: 13968

MGo Banana

November 8th, 2016 at 9:54 AM ^

UM has actually centralized most administrative services (sometimes at the expence of student services) in the name of decreasing overall administrative costs. Not trying to justify or condemn the salaries of university staff, but the administrative thing isn't the cost burden it once was. As someone who works at a Michigan public university, the bigger issue is the decrease in funding by the state legislature. That's what kept costs affordable in the past, and it has been steadily going down for years.

 

I also thought Regent Deitch's response on rising costs was lackluster, and he didn't seem too concerned with the problem. I'm just worried the university will get away from its mission and core values if people don't take on the tuition issue with more gusto.

Joined: 08/06/2014

MGoPoints: 175

jmblue

November 8th, 2016 at 11:32 AM ^

From what I've read, administrative expenses are still far higher than they were a decade ago. Maybe we have managed to tame the beast somewhat but I'm not sure the issue is fully under control.  The school's budget overall continues to steadily increase at a time when the state's population is stagnant and its economy fragile, at best.

We've got to think long and hard about where we're headed.  Certainly it would be nice if the state could provide more money, but what if that doesn't happen?  What is our Plan B?  

 

Joined: 11/07/2008

MGoPoints: 102860

I dumped the Dope

November 8th, 2016 at 12:38 PM ^

having been around Ann Arbor for a significant portion of my life, is the UM has an "appetite for construction"  Lots of new buildings have been built or significantly upgraded, the brick and mortar is incredibly expensive plus the "forever cost" of maintaining it with people and staffs.  Not speaking solely of academics, but hospital, powerplant and of course athletics...which is probably the most pure, running off its own budget....

If you know of Fingerle Lumber, I'm truly amazed its still there, it would seem to be right in the wheelhouse of property acquisition.

I realize there's a delicate balance between stagnating to a creaky old college with ancient facilities that survives on past reputation vs being research-oriented and having an eye towards the future.

Hopefully the "leaders and best" mantra can be applied to controlling costs and keeping tuition reasonable.

Joined: 09/22/2013

MGoPoints: 2342

ST3

November 8th, 2016 at 9:41 AM ^

or one Denard Robinson Cook.

If Brian were to become Regent, that would put him in a difficult potential conflict of interest situation (not that that ever bothered our next president - hey now, no politics) if he maintained this Blog. How does one maintain blogalistic* integrity if he is part of the institution that he is commenting about? I prefer he stay with the Blog.

*the equivalent of "journalistic" for bloggers

Joined: 09/11/2010

MGoPoints: 52559

CTSgoblue

November 7th, 2016 at 10:51 PM ^

Didn't he back out of his promise and then throw his support behind some other guy? That's what I recall. Something like "this guy embodies the right qualities..."

Joined: 08/20/2014

MGoPoints: 5362

jmblue

November 7th, 2016 at 10:54 PM ^

To be honest, I think it'd be hard for a thirtysomething college sports blogger to gain a major party nomination for Regent.

It's probably simpler for him to just endorse somebody.

Joined: 11/07/2008

MGoPoints: 102860

Brian

November 7th, 2016 at 11:03 PM ^

Partisan election, so it's pointless to run as anything other than a Republican or Democrat. Had a few conversations but w/ two incumbents up for Dems and... uh... the wider political climate, not feasible. 

I'll keep working at it. 

Joined: 05/26/2008

MGoPoints: 118859

drzoidburg

November 8th, 2016 at 6:23 AM ^

OMG is this really the only purpose to the regents, to ensure *sports* are going well? Not only is it separate from academics - what the school exists for - but it's all of 2% of the budget This makes me want the U to privatize more than ever. If even alumni do not get this, what right does the average uneducated joe have to vote for the leadership of an elite college? I say give him back the $4 a year he contributes and take some autonomy!

Joined: 09/20/2015

MGoPoints: 2220