jupitertoo

3. How will the expenditure of well over $100,000 for a mother-in-law suite help in the solicitation of private funding.

Veiled threat at the end.

From story: UA Vice President Nathan Mortimer said the house repairs were predominantly paid through an endowment, fundraising efforts and internal labor. There were costs to the university. “We had some raised dollars last year, about $141,000, to help furnish the house, and there were some university monies used as well,” said Mortimer, who also is treasurer of the University of Akron Foundation.

Read today's story in which the Foundation chief acknowledges that some university (non endowment) funds were indeed used to cover some expenditures.

The university is now backing off this assurance. His claim didn't square with earlier comments by university admin., and it seems that indeed some funds were taken from the coffers after the housing accounts were exhausted. Seriously, why do we as taxpayers have to pay for the construction of an in-law suite that costs more than $100K and includes a shower with remote controls? Why shouldn't the family pay for that change to the structure?

PD today with a story outlining the $950,000+ renovation of the Scarborourgh's mansion: Turns out, $400k plus came out of general fund; was not all donated money, as claimed earlier Includes renovation of two bedrooms and bath into an in-law's suite - since when are we responsible for renovations/ugrades to house grandparents? $141,000 in furnishings, just for 1 floor. Includes $500+ olive jar. That's my favorite.

Even Joe Dunn has admitted that the university has looked at the numbers and the budget for football could shrink by $2 million by moving down to FCS. Said it on his radio show last week. Other MAC schools have done studies that indicate $2-$4 million savings. What negates these savings in the minds of some are the millions of revenue supposedly available through bowls. Can you tell me of one MAC school - besides possibly NIU @ the Orange Bowl - that has made money on a bowl trip? OU lost $200k on its last bowl. We're kidding ourselves, folks, and only delaying the inevitable. The whole league should bite the bullet, hold a press conference and announce that we have chosen to do college sports the right way, putting our priorities back where they belong. That's how the MAC could differentiate itself.

The head of the faculty senate making that recommendation is not a non-story. Mind you, the same story has essentially been printed at every mid-major university supporting D1 football in recent years. It comes up every year in Athens, Ohio, and is reported not only in the Athens papers but also the Columbus media. As a matter of fact, I believe it was 1988 or 1989 when the same Beacon Journal ran a story reporting that Ohio University's faculty senate had recommended a move to then-I-AA football...all based on the same student subsidy issue. As sports fans, we all hate to see the subject raised but it is very much a legitimate topic that deserves careful attention on every campus except for an elite few.

Seriously, can't the same be said of InfoCision stadium? I think that's a legitimate question. We know that 300k plus attend shows at EJT, which would make it a more viable "front porch" to the community. But my number one concern is HOW this has been handled. It must be the most ham-handed PR approach ever. I fear we're going to see a significant loss of incoming freshman both this year and next due to the terrible PR. Hearing of LOTS of incoming students who are rethinking their college choice -- even some who are going to sit out a semester until they can enroll late at Can't. Don't blame the media - they are only reporting the facts that are being shared with them. The administration needed to get out in front of this and control the message. They didn't, and they're paying for it. The board is ultimate responsible; when will they be held accountable?

Hiring a real agent is a key part of taking the next step up.

http://grumpyabe.blogspot.com/2015/07/do-ua-leadership-trustees-hear-drumbeat.html

I wouldn't suggest "asking" students if they're willing to pay (and they are paying, big time, through subsidies) for intercollegiate athletics. I'm guessing that any school outside the elite programs would find that a majority of students would vote to keep the money in their own pockets. This is certainly true of MAC level programs, which are so heavily subsidized. I was stunned to learn recently how heavily students at Rutgers subsidize their football program. It's just not a winning proposition. I'm all for MAC type programs taking a stand and doing college sports the way they should be run - as a true competition among student-athletes. That's something to be proud of.

Quote: "Akron does more research than OU and has a couple of National Academy members on faculty." Fact: Most recent statistics from National Science Foundation for science and engineering research (engineering being a strength at Akron) Total research expenditures: OU 41.2M UA 34.5M Federally funded research, science & engineering OU $16.6M UA $10.9M Total research - non science and engineerin8 OU $1.8M UA $346K

Favorite college sports team results (full) OSU 51% UC 10% OU 6% UA 4% Miami 3% Can't State 3% UT 3% BG 3%

Here's what you wrote a few posts ago: "Again, somebody show me how OU differentiates itself from Akron, Can't State, Toledo or Bowling Green." I just showed you with real numbers from the BOR. You made the specious claim that recent fundraising in Athens was an aberration, and that annual figures were more commonly one-third of those most recently reported. I provided audited figures that show that not to be the case. OU's endowment is larger than Miami's and, while smaller on a per-student basis, hasgrowing at a much faster pace during Rod McDavis's tenure. Now you've changed your tune with, "Is OU arguably first among equals on the left hand side of the napkin? Yes, I would concede that." OU has 22K+ apps for the upcoming fall and is projecting record enrollment for both undergrad and graduate population...in spite of the fact that it is, admittedly, located in B-F Egypt. Akron, in an urban area, is projecting another enrollment decrease. Nowhere close to equal. BG is losing traction, as well. Toledo - where we got our new prez - is hardly setting the world afire. As an Akron faculty member, it pains me to see how badly we have missed our chance to become a premier urban university, one that offers an excellent educational value based on quality of faculty, instruction, support, and student experience. Under Dr. Proenza, we lost significant talent from our faculty and attempted to backfill with adjunct faculty that is in many cases sorely inadequate. Instructional materials and other mission critical resources are lacking. Faculty morale is at an all-time low. Students are unhappy with their relationship with the school due to inane fee and billing policies. We nickel and dime these kids to death while continually cheapening our product. Our infrastructure spending on football is bleeding us dry and we're seeing absolutely no return on that investment in terms of university branding or prestige. We tried to be something that we are not and as a result are losing what foothold we have historically enjoyed. Why? Because we've allowed a politically charged board of trustees to make countless bad decisions. I for one, while being a big sports fan, believe the time has come for all of Ohio's secondary Div I schools to do the right thing and end the arms race in athletics. Let the OSUs of the world enjoy it while they can, but their reckoning will eventually come as well.

University endoments, as reported by College & University Business Officers & Commonwealth Inst. OU $515.9M (up 15% over prior) Miami $464.3M (+11.5) Toledo $416.1 (+16.9) YSU 239.3 (included because I find it surprising) Akron $211.7 (up 14.8%) Can't State Did not report BG Did not report

Let's use Ohio Board of Regents statistics. 1. Here's how the Board of Regents classifies state universities based on average ACT for incoming freshman: A. Over 24: Miami U, OSU B. 22.5-24: Cincinnati, OU C. 21-22.49: BG, Can't, Toledo D. Below 21: Akron 2. Student retention, 1st to 2nd year (among the schools you say are all the same) OU 81% Can't State 78% BG 74% Akron 69% Toledo 64% 3. 6-year graduation rate OU 71% BG 63% Can't 56% Toledo 51% Akron 44% 4. Doctoral/research degrees conferred - 2014 (you grossly misstated OU's) Can't State 172 + 114 medical degrees OU 135 + 163 medical degrees Toledo 111 + 445 medical degrees BG 107 Akron 115 + 137 medical degrees 5. Graduate enrollment Can't State 4,521 (+33% since 2005) OU 4,404 (+46%) Toledo 3,981 (+22%) Akron 3,062 (9%) BG 1,538 (-33%) 6. Undergraduate enrollment OU 26,213 (Up 6% over 2013; up 22% since 2005) Can't State 25,426 (0% over prior year) Akron 20,677 (-6%) Toledo 18,840 (-5%) BG 15,577 (-1%)

Zip-O-Matic might be interested in knowing that the fundraising figures he disputes come from the latest audited statements of the Ohio University Foundation, which I think I'll trust more than his odd website. I think he'll also be interested in trashing Miami U, which has dropped in the US News Ratings (from the mid-50s to 70s) through the years. Obviously another 200 year old institution on the decline. On the topic of recruiting high-achieving high school students, it should be noted that universities located in urban areas actually have a bit of a leg up. A friend of mine who worked for 6 years in UA's admissions department explained that a certain percentage of these kids are far more likely to attend a local university, at least for the first year or two, due either to financial constraints or parental influence. Some parents are reluctant to send their kids away to school and others simply can't afford it. I saw the former with several of my fellow graduates at Walsh Jesuit back in the day. Many of them eventually transferred to Ohio State or other school. Cincinnati has the same advantage, as does OSU. It also should be noted that OSU has been masterful in upping its class profile by "parking" kids on the Mansfield campus before eventually allowing them to transfer to Columbus.

Hilarious. I just looked at the website for this independent organization from which you've been collecting bogus information. What a freaking joke. Seriously, I assume you were either denied tenure in Athens or have some other axe to grind. Get a life. Crawl back under the rock. Now let's change the discussion to something constructive. How, for example, Akron can turn around its enrollment problems. Perhaps your most delusional comment is the prospect of Akron somehow absorbing Can't or even being merged with Can't as a marriage of equals. In case you haven't noticed, Can't is on a much different trajectory than UA and I doubt their administration would have any interest in inheriting the politically inspired mess that this board and Dr. Proenza have created over the past 15 years.

Quote: OU 53.859 (117/75) *and this seems to something of a aberration since in the vast majority of years their take as been in the high teens or low twenties. Actually, giving to the university was 130.5 million in 2011, 53.4M in 2010, 46.7M in 2009 and 88.6M in 2008. So not quite the aberration you claim. And endowment is now more than $520M, or 3X UA's. How about annual university licensing revenue from research? OU is #1 in state, followed by Case, OSU, Toledo, Can't and Akron, in order.

Fulbright Scholars, current year: Ohio State: 14 Ohio University: 10 UC: 3 Miami: 2 Akron: 0 Latest US News rankings have UC and OU deadlocked at 129 among national universities. OSU is 54, Miami 76, BG 173, Can't 194, Akron and Toledo not ranked.

Wow, must have been denied admission to Ohio University? I think the rancor from other schools re Akron's proposal is due simply to the fact that a member of the Akron board decided to take a shot at other schools that are FAR outperforming his school on virtually every basis: OU has set enrollment records in five of the past six years. They have received more than 22K applications for 4,900 freshman spots for the upcoming fall term, setting a record for the third straight year. Endowment, while a fraction of that of UC, is more than twice that of Akron and is growing at a far faster rate. Incoming freshman scores are the highest ever. The school just established a medical campus in Columbus via a $100 million gift. Its regional campuses are all very strong. The school has successfully differentiated itself from other state universities and has finally left the shadow of OSU. Ask any high school counselor and they will tell you that OU is one of the hottest schools in the state from an interest and engagement standpoint. So why wasn't OU on the "right" side of the board member's napkin? First of all, as an employee of UA, I believe this board has done a pathetic job over the past 15 years in terms of building our brand. Yes, we needed a campus refresh, but the academic profile has suffered mightily in all but a few departments/majors. So the thoughts of a given board member don't carry a great deal of weight. Secondly, his list is based on competitive issues; he knows Akron will never rank with Miami U, nor have the scale of an OSU or UC. He sees OU, Can't, BGSU and Toledo as his real "competition" therefore, and he sure wasn't going to admit that they are doing something right. OU has never been stronger; moreover, with a beautiful campus, many strong programs and a history that no other state school can match, it will be fine over the long term. It would be best if Akron's board and president focused on its own challenges rather than throwing stones at other, better performing schools. And it seems as though many of you agree with the severity of the issues in Buchtel hall; hell, more than a few are already dreaming of merging with other NE Ohio universities!

Plain Dealer now running a news story indicating the other university presidents are upset about Scarborough's claims re the future of their schools. Definitely saw this coming.

Um, I was there and he essentially brought all of his administrative people with him to cheer him on. It was a half hearted standing o started by one of his own people.

Short-term, this is a marketing-driven "fix." Don't know that Scarborough has access to the funding and long leash necessary to make this change work over the long term. Needs to stop the bleeding from an enrollment standpoint so he can invest in academics.