UA Considering Outsourcing Management of Student Housing

[clarkwgriswold]

The University is considering outsourcing the management of student housing, much as they have parking and is soliciting proposals.

 

Here's a very minimal and incomplete story from the Beacon/Ohio.com-

 

https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/education/2024/02/13/university-of-akron-looking-to-outsource-management-of-student-housing-parking-revenue-higher-ed/72586213007/

[Hilltopper]

Anything they do to reduce the debt run up by Proenza and others is a step in the right direction. Letting others run things like parking and housing is a good idea. Just concentrate on educating. Let someone else worry about repaving parking lots and fixing leaky plumbing in dorm rooms.

[ClevelandZip]

3 hours ago, Hilltopper said:

Anything they do to reduce the debt run up by Proenza and others is a step in the right direction. Letting others run things like parking and housing is a good idea. Just concentrate on educating. Let someone else worry about repaving parking lots and fixing leaky plumbing in dorm rooms.

Anyone know how much money they got for outsourcing the parking?

[ZipCat]

On 2/13/2024 at 6:57 PM, Hilltopper said:

Anything they do to reduce the debt run up by Proenza and others is a step in the right direction. Letting others run things like parking and housing is a good idea. Just concentrate on educating. Let someone else worry about repaving parking lots and fixing leaky plumbing in dorm rooms.

 

Nah, just the further privatization (and skimming) of public funds to private hands. Everyone should honestly be against stuff like this. 

[GP1]

On 3/2/2024 at 9:50 AM, ZipCat said:

 

Nah, just the further privatization (and skimming) of public funds to private hands. Everyone should honestly be against stuff like this. 

Time and again, the private sector spends public funds more efficiently than public institutions. Example below. 

 

https://qz.com/emails/space-business/2172377/an-oxford-case-study-explains-why-spacex-is-more-efficient-than-nasa#:~:text=The results are clear in,projects averaged about seven years.

 

[Reslife4Life]

From my sources it seems like this wouldn’t be that drastic of a change if it were to happen. First off, they are simply looking for companies to partner in this, there aren’t any set up yet. Second, all student activities through residence life would remain in the same hands, it is their priority to not have any changes made to student programming in residence life. And third, if a company were to come in, it is also a priority to have the current full time reslife staff not be laid off but rather have them contracted to work with the private company. 
 

This story is pretty important to me, going off the username and all

[ZipCat]

On 3/9/2024 at 12:54 PM, GP1 said:

Time and again, the private sector spends public funds more efficiently than public institutions. Example below. 

Using an Oxford analysis between SpaceX and NASA isn't the bolstering claim you think it is. NASA's bread-and-butter is innovating new nonexistent technology, and is hampered by political interests of Congress. While SpaceX's replication of already existent technology (that wouldn't exist without Public Funding and decades of work and research by NASA footing the upstart cost) is to be commended, their ability to innovate is nothing short of a disaster. "Failure is not an option" has been replaced with "well, it cleared the tower before it blew up!" level incompetence.

 

No privatization generally means less-quality and less public control, which means less sense of community and less caring. Not to mention, NASA isn't actually saving that much money using SpaceX when compared to when it ran the SpaceShuttle in terms of the payloads themselves. There's a lot of bad reporting out there (that doesn't do the math they just take the reports of a private company with unopened books as gospel), and SpaceX is burning through investment cash...which demonstrates it's not running profitably (so it's all an illusion).

Edited March 11, 2024 by ZipCat

[Hilltopper]

On 3/10/2024 at 8:06 PM, ZipCat said:

Using an Oxford analysis between SpaceX and NASA isn't the bolstering claim you think it is. NASA's bread-and-butter is innovating new nonexistent technology, and is hampered by political interests of Congress. While SpaceX's replication of already existent technology (that wouldn't exist without Public Funding and decades of work and research by NASA footing the upstart cost) is to be commended, their ability to innovate is nothing short of a disaster. "Failure is not an option" has been replaced with "well, it cleared the tower before it blew up!" level incompetence.

 

No privatization generally means less-quality and less public control, which means less sense of community and less caring. Not to mention, NASA isn't actually saving that much money using SpaceX when compared to when it ran the SpaceShuttle in terms of the payloads themselves. There's a lot of bad reporting out there (that doesn't do the math they just take the reports of a private company with unopened books as gospel), and SpaceX is burning through investment cash...which demonstrates it's not running profitably (so it's all an illusion).

Just one question, when did NASA ever return a profit? 

[ZipCat]

12 hours ago, Hilltopper said:

Just one question, when did NASA ever return a profit? 

They're a non-profit government agency. So that's a stupid question. A better question is What is the economic impact of NASA technological development? Since it's economic impact outweighs its cost, not to mention the measurable impact it's had on STEM for the past 60 years...Here's a better question:

 

When has SpaceX (or any private rocket company) ever returned a profit? Oh, and before you try to cite the WSJ article claiming SpaceX turned a profit in 2023 (according to self-released records), they had several investor capital fundraisers last year...and have been running in the red relying on government subsidies and contracts and private investor capital to keep going.

 

A boondoggle isn't a good example. And relating it back to UA ... the "profit" doesn't go to UA, it goes to a private company. Is it going to decrease the cost to students? No?
Is it going to increase the quality/value to students? No? It's scammy. Just like those speed cameras where 80% of the ticket goes to the private company.  Just another example of the private sector leaching off the public sector tit.

Edited March 14, 2024 by ZipCat

[Hilltopper]

2 hours ago, ZipCat said:

They're a non-profit government agency. So that's a stupid question. A better question is What is the economic impact of NASA technological development? Since it's economic impact outweighs its cost, not to mention the measurable impact it's had on STEM for the past 60 years...Here's a better question:

 

When has SpaceX (or any private rocket company) ever returned a profit? Oh, and before you try to cite the WSJ article claiming SpaceX turned a profit in 2023 (according to self-released records), they had several investor capital fundraisers last year...and have been running in the red relying on government subsidies and contracts and private investor capital to keep going.

 

A boondoggle isn't a good example. And relating it back to UA ... the "profit" doesn't go to UA, it goes to a private company. Is it going to decrease the cost to students? No?
Is it going to increase the quality/value to students? No? It's scammy. Just like those speed cameras where 80% of the ticket goes to the private company.  Just another example of the private sector leaching off the public sector tit.

I think you missed my point comrade, nothing about spaceflight has ever been profitable. Yet. SpaceX has made launching to LEO so inexpensive and efficient that it allows NASA to concentrate on scientific projects. SST was able to launch large payloads but it wasn't efficient in terms of cost in both dollars and lives. Starship will soon have the same payload capacity. I'm betting on SpaceX making it happen.

[UAZipster0305]

On 3/14/2024 at 5:34 AM, ZipCat said:

They're a non-profit government agency. So that's a stupid question. A better question is What is the economic impact of NASA technological development? Since it's economic impact outweighs its cost, not to mention the measurable impact it's had on STEM for the past 60 years...Here's a better question:

 

When has SpaceX (or any private rocket company) ever returned a profit? Oh, and before you try to cite the WSJ article claiming SpaceX turned a profit in 2023 (according to self-released records), they had several investor capital fundraisers last year...and have been running in the red relying on government subsidies and contracts and private investor capital to keep going.

 

A boondoggle isn't a good example. And relating it back to UA ... the "profit" doesn't go to UA, it goes to a private company. Is it going to decrease the cost to students? No?
Is it going to increase the quality/value to students? No? It's scammy. Just like those speed cameras where 80% of the ticket goes to the private company.  Just another example of the private sector leaching off the public sector tit.

 

Delete

Edited March 15, 2024 by UAZipster0305

[ZipCat]

On 3/14/2024 at 8:08 AM, Hilltopper said:

I think you missed my point comrade, nothing about spaceflight has ever been profitable. Yet. SpaceX has made launching to LEO so inexpensive and efficient that it allows NASA to concentrate on scientific projects. SST was able to launch large payloads but it wasn't efficient in terms of cost in both dollars and lives. Starship will soon have the same payload capacity. I'm betting on SpaceX making it happen.

 

I did not miss your point; you're implying a non-profitable venture is somehow done better by a for-profit company. That's unsustainable and would break in the future. It's a gamble. It's a ponzi scheme that relies on constant taxpayer subsidies to exist, and gambles that a burgeoning private-sector demand for Starship will exist in the future. It's a privatized-company gamble funded by you and me. It's running on investor capital and taxpayer subsidies. If it doesn't payoff it's you and I who are out footing the bill. It's you and I the taxpayer who are impacted. It's the common welfare that's affected.

 

But relating this back to The University of Akron: A private company running stuff on campus doesn't save students money. And if it doesn't save students money it shouldn't be done. A Public University should not be a front for private-interests to line their pockets. 

Edited March 16, 2024 by ZipCat

[taylercoooper]

On 3/11/2024 at 3:06 AM, ZipCat said:

Using an Oxford analysis between SpaceX and NASA isn't the bolstering claim you think it is. NASA's bread-and-butter is innovating new nonexistent technology, and is hampered by political interests of Congress. While SpaceX's replication of already existent technology (that wouldn't exist without Public Funding and decades of work and research by NASA footing the upstart cost) is to be commended, their ability to innovate is nothing short of a disaster. "Failure is not an option" has been replaced with "well, it cleared the tower before it blew up!" level incompetence.

In some cultures, gambling website is associated with luck and superstition.

No privatization generally means less-quality and less public control, which means less sense of community and less caring. Not to mention, NASA isn't actually saving that much money using SpaceX when compared to when it ran the SpaceShuttle in terms of the payloads themselves. There's a lot of bad reporting out there (that doesn't do the math they just take the reports of a private company with unopened books as gospel), and SpaceX is burning through investment cash...which demonstrates it's not running profitably (so it's all an illusion).

That’s an interesting perspective! Do you think SpaceX’s reliance on existing technology might limit their ability to push the envelope in the way NASA does, or is their approach more about making space access sustainable and cost-effective? Also, do you feel that NASA’s political constraints significantly hinder its ability to innovate, or do those same constraints drive a different kind of innovation?

Edited April 24 by taylercoooper

[ZipCat]

On 4/22/2025 at 3:08 AM, taylercoooper said:

That’s an interesting perspective! Do you think SpaceX’s reliance on existing technology might limit their ability to push the envelope in the way NASA does, or is their approach more about making space access sustainable and cost-effective? Also, do you feel that NASA’s political constraints significantly hinder its ability to innovate, or do those same constraints drive a different kind of innovation?

 

Well I think their underlying principle of you can do space for cheap is a fallacy. "Cost-Effective" is a term thrown around that has very little practical meaning. Do we build aircraft carriers or ICBM Nuclear powered submarines in a "cost-effective" manner? Or do you build them to build them right to get the mission done the first time? I think the greatest thing hurting SpaceX is it's abandonment of traditional engineering principals towards a "move fast and break things" trope that has become a cliche at this point. SpaceX did a great job with Dragon and Falcon, but has waddled with Starship to the point that Blue Origin, that has not followed the "move fast and break things", is posed to surpass them on the very thing they were supposed to be first at (landing people on the moon again).

 

For the second question, that's actually a really good question. Congressional constraints hinder NASA when they constantly change approvals while development of a program is already taking place. That DID NOT happen during Apollo. And although, unknown to most people, Kennedy considered axing the Apollo program all together, it wasn't directly interfered with one the base objectives were established. Artemis and SLS have not been the same. SLS is the compromise rocket from two-decades of Congressional interference. And while it's an impressive piece of technology, that worked on the first try (unlike SpaceX's Starship) the ARES I and ARES V rockets had far more versatility, and NASA should have been allowed to continue their development. $230-billion over 7-years was spent on the development of those rockets only to have congress step in and cancel it as part of sequestration. Which then forced development on SLS using spare developmental parts from ARES.

 

Don't get me wrong, I actually think bureaucracy is good. I just think changing political winds isn't.