Does anyone know what this is about?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

So am I....but I don't want to hear the bitching about the increased tuition, etc, that comes with it then.

Too many people talk out of both sides of their mouth.  Lovell is trying to improve our overall image, as well as the value proposition.  MU costs a lot of money, so you need to show the peeps there is a reason to spend that kind of money.  

IMO, too many MU folks want us to be a great school and defy the laws of economics.  Now, don't get me wrong, I think the cost of education is insane, and a big chunk of that has to do with student loans and grant programs that are given out like candy which just allows colleges to keep jamming up costs (paying for profs, etc, etc) because money is flowing so cheaply.

That will come to an end, no different than Quanitative Easing....there is always a pauper to be paid at the end of the line.  

I bitch about tuition all of the time. It's not because I don't understand economics, it's because I DO understand economics.

You can't crank up the tuition machine indefinitely. It's NOT sustainable, especially for a private institution.

Building new facilities is nice, and adds to the value proposition, but if it makes MU unattainable for all but the uber wealthy, then they have missed the mark, especially for a Jesuit university.

With this said, I like what Lovell is doing. I think partnering with key organizations in Milwaukee can only help MU in the long run.

I'm in favor of "new" when it's appropriate/needed. I'm not in favor of "new" just because it looks better on a prospective student tour, or because Oshkosh has a better Rec Center. That kind of thinking will put MU out of business inside of 30 years.

MU is valuable because of the education and reputation. Work on those things first. That's the value proposition.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

I bitch about tuition all of the time. It's not because I don't understand economics, it's because I DO understand economics.

You can't crank up the tuition machine indefinitely. It's NOT sustainable, especially for a private institution.

Building new facilities is nice, and adds to the value proposition, but if it makes MU unattainable for all but the uber wealthy, then they have missed the mark, especially for a Jesuit university.

With this said, I like what Lovell is doing. I think partnering with key organizations in Milwaukee can only help MU in the long run.

I'm in favor of "new" when it's appropriate/needed. I'm not in favor of "new" just because it looks better on a prospective student tour, or because Oshkosh has a better Rec Center. That kind of thinking will put MU out of business inside of 30 years.

MU is valuable because of the education and reputation. Work on those things first. That's the value proposition.

Selfishly I still want a new rec center though  . Heck Bradley has a beautiful rec center I understand other things should come first (The labs in wehr chem anyone) but a new rec would be cool.

[jficke13]

The biggest driver of tuition cost is federally guaranteed loans. Period. Full stop. Being able to Put up shiny new buildings, which obviously require higher tuition to support is a symptom of the disease. If universities couldn't get, literally, any amount of tuition they wanted to charge from the feds, then they would be forced to prioritize, renovate, and seek the efficiencies from renovating, remodeling, or making do, that Ammo suggests on a regular basis (not disagreeing, they should be doing those things).

Until the well goes dry, there's no *incentive* not to keep building and passing along the costs in the form of tuition.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Selfishly I still want a new rec center though  . Heck Bradley has a beautiful rec center I understand other things should come first (The labs in wehr chem anyone) but a new rec would be cool.

Totally, I mean, a new gym would be super fun. No doubt.

I just don't know if it's a required spend right now.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I bitch about tuition all of the time. It's not because I don't understand economics, it's because I DO understand economics.

You can't crank up the tuition machine indefinitely. It's NOT sustainable, especially for a private institution.

Building new facilities is nice, and adds to the value proposition, but if it makes MU unattainable for all but the uber wealthy, then they have missed the mark, especially for a Jesuit university.

With this said, I like what Lovell is doing. I think partnering with key organizations in Milwaukee can only help MU in the long run.

I'm in favor of "new" when it's appropriate/needed. I'm not in favor of "new" just because it looks better on a prospective student tour, or because Oshkosh has a better Rec Center. That kind of thinking will put MU out of business inside of 30 years.

MU is valuable because of the education and reputation. Work on those things first. That's the value proposition.

Then decide what you want to be.  Do you want to be a world class university, a top 100 or top 50 university in this States?  It means it is going to cost students a lot of money as a private institution.

That's the reality. 

If you want lower tuition, then you have to be ready for the tradeoffs....faculty leaving for better gigs, fewer shiny new toys, higher enrollment (i.e. less selective), etc.

Tradeoffs in life.

[4everwarriors]

Interestin' that a few schools like Harvard, Stanford, USC, Northwestern, etc. can be the recipients of donations in one fiscal year, far greater than our entire endowment?

[source?]

Interestin' that a few schools like Harvard, Stanford, USC, Northwestern, etc. can be the recipients of donations in one fiscal year, far greater than our entire endowment?

It seems to me that the starting salary out of Harvard might be ever so slightly higher than Marquette.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The biggest driver of tuition cost is federally guaranteed loans. Period. Full stop. Being able to Put up shiny new buildings, which obviously require higher tuition to support is a symptom of the disease. If universities couldn't get, literally, any amount of tuition they wanted to charge from the feds, then they would be forced to prioritize, renovate, and seek the efficiencies from renovating, remodeling, or making do, that Ammo suggests on a regular basis (not disagreeing, they should be doing those things).

Until the well goes dry, there's no *incentive* not to keep building and passing along the costs in the form of tuition.

B  I   N   G  O

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

The biggest driver of tuition cost is federally guaranteed loans. Period. Full stop. Being able to Put up shiny new buildings, which obviously require higher tuition to support is a symptom of the disease. If universities couldn't get, literally, any amount of tuition they wanted to charge from the feds, then they would be forced to prioritize, renovate, and seek the efficiencies from renovating, remodeling, or making do, that Ammo suggests on a regular basis (not disagreeing, they should be doing those things).

Until the well goes dry, there's no *incentive* not to keep building and passing along the costs in the form of tuition.

Totally fair.

I mean, I'm not saying that MU should be acting out of fear and hoarding cash because of impending doom. They need to reinvest. Great.

But, they also need to have an eye on the future. You can't have tuition continue at this rate.

Something is going to give. Having a campus full of awesome facilities that nobody can afford isn't a good idea.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Then decide what you want to be.  Do you want to be a world class university, a top 100 or top 50 university in this States?  It means it is going to cost students a lot of money as a private institution.

That's the reality. 

If you want lower tuition, then you have to be ready for the tradeoffs....faculty leaving for better gigs, fewer shiny new toys, higher enrollment (i.e. less selective), etc.

Tradeoffs in life.

No, the reality is, MU is "worth it" because of the education you receive. NOT the buildings. NOT the Rec Center. NOT the shiny new dorms.

So, while capital improvements are always going to be a part of MU's ongoing costs, I don't think "build baby build" and passing the costs onto future students is a good way to become a "world class University", and doesn't really fit MU's mission statement.

I never expect MU to be cheap. I just don't want to see them price themselves out of the marketplace.

[mu-rara]

Selfishly I still want a new rec center though  . Heck Bradley has a beautiful rec center I understand other things should come first (The labs in wehr chem anyone) but a new rec would be cool.

Any one who wants something because it is cool is not the one on the hook for paying for it.

[GooooMarquette]

The biggest driver of tuition cost is federally guaranteed loans. Period. Full stop. Being able to Put up shiny new buildings, which obviously require higher tuition to support is a symptom of the disease. If universities couldn't get, literally, any amount of tuition they wanted to charge from the feds, then they would be forced to prioritize, renovate, and seek the efficiencies from renovating, remodeling, or making do, that Ammo suggests on a regular basis (not disagreeing, they should be doing those things).

Until the well goes dry, there's no *incentive* not to keep building and passing along the costs in the form of tuition.

Yep.  Both education and healthcare costs have expanded well beyond the rate of inflation because consumers (students/patients) don't see a direct connection between their decision to "buy" the product and the cost of the product.  Student loans look like free money to the kid, so he or she won't scrutinize colleges based on cost.  Likewise in healthcare, Medicare and other insurance products have long made healthcare look virtually free to insured consumers, leading to overutilization.

I'm not arguing against some form of student loans and health insurance - both are vitally important in our efforts to distribute resources appropriately - but we still need to make a closer connection between the buyer and the cost of services.  This is starting to occur in healthcare - more plans with higher deductibles and copayments, movement toward paying providers based on value (cost/benefit), etc.  These will lead to patients seeking care when appropriate, and at the "highest value" providers.  This in turn will incentivize more providers to get into the high value bucket.  A long process, but steps in the right direction.  We need to find similar fixes in education.

[jficke13]

Totally fair.

I mean, I'm not saying that MU should be acting out of fear and hoarding cash because of impending doom. They need to reinvest. Great.

But, they also need to have an eye on the future. You can't have tuition continue at this rate.

Something is going to give. Having a campus full of awesome facilities that nobody can afford isn't a good idea.

Is there any value in saying "okay we've got a gravy train revenue stream right now; let's capitalize on it and build all of the capital investments we need to be a world class university for the next fifty years AFTER the crash occurs and it becomes harder to make the same investments" ?

[GGGG]

Is there any value in saying "okay we've got a gravy train revenue stream right now; let's capitalize on it and build all of the capital investments we need to be a world class university for the next fifty years AFTER the crash occurs and it becomes harder to make the same investments" ?

Cheap bond rates are fueling a lot of college and university building right now for that very reason.

[jficke13]

...
But, they also need to have an eye on the future. You can't have tuition continue at this rate.
...

Backward looking evidence suggests that it can and will. Until the feds turn off the spigot of unlimited loan $ tuition can and will continue to increase with no foreseeable upper bound.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Is there any value in saying "okay we've got a gravy train revenue stream right now; let's capitalize on it and build all of the capital investments we need to be a world class university for the next fifty years AFTER the crash occurs and it becomes harder to make the same investments" ?

That's entirely possible, and maybe that is the best way to do it.

However, IMHO, it's almost impossible to reduce tuition. Therefore, continuing to crank it up over and over again with the idea that they can magically get it under control in the future is high risk.

"I'll start my diet next week."

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Backward looking evidence suggests that it can and will. Until the feds turn off the spigot of unlimited loan $ tuition can and will continue to increase with no foreseeable upper bound.

Truthfully, I'm not an economist, so my opinion means very little.

I'm just a pragmatist looking at the growth, costs, and value of an MU education.

[jficke13]

For the record I do agree with you that tuition is too high already and its continued increases are not sustainable. However, I do also realize that competing on cost is not going to improve the university. As long as the tuition dollars are guaranteed to the university by the feds, and the reality of what 6 figures of debt means is deferred until after it's too late to make a different buying decision, universities compete on everything besides tuition cost.

If that's the case then we are asking MU to behave irrationally within their marketplace.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

For the record I do agree with you that tuition is too high already and its continued increases are not sustainable. However, I do also realize that competing on cost is not going to improve the university. As long as the tuition dollars are guaranteed to the university by the feds, and the reality of what 6 figures of debt means is deferred until after it's too late to make a different buying decision, universities compete on everything besides tuition cost.

If that's the case then we are asking MU to behave irrationally within their marketplace.

Very true.

True innovators and visionaries are often seen as irrational. 

But, yes, you are correct. I just hope MU (and other schools) can course correct before the bottom falls out.

Also, I'd like to thank everybody in this thread for not turning this into something about JJJ/playing time/Wojo vs Deane/Derrick.

[6746jonesr]

Wow, trying to figure out how this thread went from the announcement of a new field house that will be the home of soccer and Lacrosse, as well as a state of the art research center turned into a discussion of a rec center and higher tuition.  This is not a new rec center.  Although students will be allowed to use the facility when it is not in use by the athletic teams (this is similar to most universities that have field houses), their tuition will not be used to support it.  Now, if your argument is that donors should not fund this initiative because the soccer and Lacrosse teams do not need a facility, that's one thing, or if they should give their money to scholarships for undergrads in general, I can sympathize with your concerns.  But that doesn't seem to be the case here.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Wow, trying to figure out how this thread went from the announcement of a new field house that will be the home of soccer and Lacrosse, as well as a state of the art research center turned into a discussion of a rec center and higher tuition.  This is not a new rec center.  Although students will be allowed to use the facility when it is not in use by the athletic teams (this is similar to most universities that have field houses), their tuition will not be used to support it.  Now, if your argument is that donors should not fund this initiative because the soccer and Lacrosse teams do not need a facility, that's one thing, or if they should give their money to scholarships for undergrads in general, I can sympathize with your concerns.  But that doesn't seem to be the case here.

I'm probably responsible for some of that nonsense/off track. 

- The fieldhouse is a good idea, and needed. (good for MU and the Bucks)

- A shiny new rec-center and more and more facilities are likely NOT required at this time, and led to a bigger conversation about capital improvements, and ultimately their cost to MU.

I fully realize that capital improvements aren't the direct cause and effect for tuition, but let's be honest, buildings aren't free, and certainly they aren't helping curb tuition.

[jesmu84]

Yep.  Both education and healthcare costs have expanded well beyond the rate of inflation because consumers (students/patients) don't see a direct connection between their decision to "buy" the product and the cost of the product.  Student loans look like free money to the kid, so he or she won't scrutinize colleges based on cost.  Likewise in healthcare, Medicare and other insurance products have long made healthcare look virtually free to insured consumers, leading to overutilization.

I'm not arguing against some form of student loans and health insurance - both are vitally important in our efforts to distribute resources appropriately - but we still need to make a closer connection between the buyer and the cost of services.  This is starting to occur in healthcare - more plans with higher deductibles and copayments, movement toward paying providers based on value (cost/benefit), etc.  These will lead to patients seeking care when appropriate, and at the "highest value" providers.  This in turn will incentivize more providers to get into the high value bucket.  A long process, but steps in the right direction.  We need to find similar fixes in education.

1. Good in theory. Horrible in execution (at least currently) because:

a) EMTALA - people will still just go to an ER whenever they feel like it, rather than when appropriate.
b) "Value" is beginning to be established by consumer/patient reports, ie. when a patient is "unhappy" with their care, they fill out a survey that punishes the provider/system. So what happens? Providers are at the mercy of making the patients happy, regardless of what is best for their health.

[WarhawkWarrior]

Research facilities are a magnet for grants.

[forgetful]

Yep.  Both education and healthcare costs have expanded well beyond the rate of inflation because consumers (students/patients) don't see a direct connection between their decision to "buy" the product and the cost of the product.  Student loans look like free money to the kid, so he or she won't scrutinize colleges based on cost.  Likewise in healthcare, Medicare and other insurance products have long made healthcare look virtually free to insured consumers, leading to overutilization.

I'm not arguing against some form of student loans and health insurance - both are vitally important in our efforts to distribute resources appropriately - but we still need to make a closer connection between the buyer and the cost of services.  This is starting to occur in healthcare - more plans with higher deductibles and copayments, movement toward paying providers based on value (cost/benefit), etc.  These will lead to patients seeking care when appropriate, and at the "highest value" providers.  This in turn will incentivize more providers to get into the high value bucket.  A long process, but steps in the right direction.  We need to find similar fixes in education.

I think you are slightly missing the mark on this statement.  The reason that they both have increased at faster than the rate of inflation is because they are "needs."  Health is a need, and a college education has also become a need to get a family sustaining job.  Because of that you are forced to choose between poverty (because you can't get a good job) or extended poverty with a chance of future escape (college).

When there are needs, the provider can continue to charge ever increasing prices, because there is no viable alternative. 

What we have done though is pushed far enough that for college, the extended poverty from loans, is nearing, permanent poverty, at which point costs can't rise anymore.

Similarly we are seeing health care costs taper off, because going to the doctor is bankrupting people. 

[GooooMarquette]

I think you are slightly missing the mark on this statement.  The reason that they both have increased at faster than the rate of inflation is because they are "needs."

Food and clothes are needs too, but haven't increased at nearly the rate of education and healthcare.  Want to guess why?  Because consumers pay directly for them.