What should be MU's next campus improvement priority?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Not according to their web site:

http://www.opuscorp.com/pages/proj_results.aspx?ProjectComplete=0&Region=&ProjectType=&ProjectSize=0,999999999

They may want to fix their website on the college of engineering completion date of 1979.

[maxpower773]

Not according to their web site:

http://www.opuscorp.com/pages/proj_results.aspx?ProjectComplete=0&Region=&ProjectType=&ProjectSize=0,999999999

They are completely supported by marquette right now and only have about 4 offices total left, all the others, including Minneapolis filed for bankruptcy.  The former president of the milwaukee office was a mu grad, along with the founder or his son(it was one of the two, if not both) of marquette.  they do work for other catholic universities and tend to donate a lot of money each year to those schools through a fund of theirs.

back to what building i'd like to see improved.....the engineering building. yes i know a new one is being built, but there isn't enough money yet for the whole building, and given it's current level of funding, the first phase will only be fit out on the first 2 floors. meaning the top 2 or 3 will be empty.  the labs, especially the structures lab is needed really really badly so i hope that all they money they have now can pay for what is needed, but i think without the 2nd phase they will be smaller for now and there won't be as many. currently the structures lab is in the basement of the engineering building, with just a little bit on the first floor. the new one will be 2 stories high and have doors with access to the street, meaning actual large objects can be tested on. currently i don't know why people commit here to go through the engineering program, especially for grad students. the teachers are good, but the labs and classrooms are awful compared to anything i've ever seen. the next one would be laulamire, but not entirely redone, i'd like to see something done to it like what was done to the amtrak station, and just have a new shell put around the existing building, for me the inside is fine for what it's used for.

[PaintTouches]

I think JH is getting a complete renovation on the inside. They had the architects meet with a panel of students last semester to see what the students wanted. I think the construction begins this summer too.

[McMARQthy]

Glad I saw this thread before University architect Tom Gainey talked to our construction management class. He covered a lot of the points. I will try and respond to some of these concerns in how I feel he responded to some of these issues.

-McCormick hall is out dated yes. Back when students came to college in the 60's they brought some clothes, some books, and maybe a shoe rack. Much different from what a college student brings today. The size of rooms wasn't an issue then compared to now. It is far too effecient at housing students to be removed as a housing option as long as students want to live there. (Believe it or not students these days do. It is the hardest dorm to get into and always has had a waiting list since I've been here.  Partying- that is what McCormick is known for these days.).

-sprinkler systems are being added to McC

-The university has long term plans. That 50 year plan includes a new rec center. Despite MUSG's demand for a new one the university does not see a need for a new one yet. (I haven't been there all semester)

-the science buildings are an eyesore. He knows this. Physics was painted for the first time last year since it was built.

-he took the blame for the horrible color of the Chem building. Said that someone else was in charge of choosing the color of the metal siding. He had to ok it and the person who chose it showed him a small sample on a cloudy and swore by it. It was a busy day and he shrugged it off and believed who ever was in charge was capable of making a good decision. He said he hates it and he'll take the blame for it.

-The science buildings were built during the sputnik scare so government funding was readily available if they could be built quickly.

-Johnson hall is being rennovated. It is difficult to renovate a building while still occupying it. I.E. It will take time.

-Two parking lots and a green spaced are replacing some of the buildings by the new law school.

-The owner of the new engineering school property also owned mccabe hall and hegartys property. He would only sell as a package deal. He didn't mention any plans of doing anything with the Hegartys property.

-Zibler hall is meant to look like a family member of the buildings around it. (Gesu, Johnson, Marquette hall). Gothic college architecture. Said they need to look like they are of a family but neccesarily identical twins.

-Lalumiere is an eyesore but serves its purpose. Would he like to get rid of it? Probably. Are there plans to? No. It was built in a time period that just did not put a whole lot of stock in appearance.

It was a great presentation. I will write more later but my hydraulics class is over.

[GGGG]

Glad I saw this thread before University architect Tom Gainey talked to our construction management class. He covered a lot of the points. I will try and respond to some of these concerns in how I feel he responded to some of these issues.

-McCormick hall is out dated yes. Back when students came to college in the 60's they brought some clothes, some books, and maybe a shoe rack. Much different from what a college student brings today. The size of rooms wasn't an issue then compared to now. It is far too effecient at housing students to be removed as a housing option as long as students want to live there. (Believe it or not students these days do. It is the hardest dorm to get into and always has had a waiting list since I've been here.  Partying- that is what McCormick is known for these days.).

-sprinkler systems are being added to McC

-The university has long term plans. That 50 year plan includes a new rec center. Despite MUSG's demand for a new one the university does not see a need for a new one yet. (I haven't been there all semester)

-the science buildings are an eyesore. He knows this. Physics was painted for the first time last year since it was built.

-he took the blame for the horrible color of the Chem building. Said that someone else was in charge of choosing the color of the metal siding. He had to ok it and the person who chose it showed him a small sample on a cloudy and swore by it. It was a busy day and he shrugged it off and believed who ever was in charge was capable of making a good decision. He said he hates it and he'll take the blame for it.

-The science buildings were built during the sputnik scare so government funding was readily available if they could be built quickly.

-Johnson hall is being rennovated. It is difficult to renovate a building while still occupying it. I.E. It will take time.

-Two parking lots and a green spaced are replacing some of the buildings by the new law school.

-The owner of the new engineering school property also owned mccabe hall and hegartys property. He would only sell as a package deal. He didn't mention any plans of doing anything with the Hegartys property.

-Zibler hall is meant to look like a family member of the buildings around it. (Gesu, Johnson, Marquette hall). Gothic college architecture. Said they need to look like they are of a family but neccesarily identical twins.

-Lalumiere is an eyesore but serves its purpose. Would he like to get rid of it? Probably. Are there plans to? No. It was built in a time period that just did not put a whole lot of stock in appearance.

It was a great presentation. I will write more later but my hydraulics class is over.

LOL...thanks.

[martyconlonontherun]

-Lalumiere is an eyesore but serves its purpose. Would he like to get rid of it? Probably. Are there plans to? No. It was built in a time period that just did not put a whole lot of stock in appearance.

It was a great presentation. I will write more later but my hydraulics class is over.

Great post. Just confused by the lalumiere statement. Wasn't it built a period that cared too much about appearance. It just seems like it was built based on a specific time period style. If appearance wasn't a priority back then, they would have just built a plain building with standard windows. Maybe he meant it was built when they weren't concerned with building a campus identity and instead just inserted random cool-looking buildings from the time period.

[McMARQthy]

Great post. Just confused by the lalumiere statement. Wasn't it built a period that cared too much about appearance. It just seems like it was built based on a specific time period style. If appearance wasn't a priority back then, they would have just built a plain building with standard windows. Maybe he meant it was built when they weren't concerned with building a campus identity and instead just inserted random cool-looking buildings from the time period.

I may have accidentally included that building in the science building group.  It was an hour an 15 minute presentation so don't go quoting me on the 100% accuracy of any of these bullet points.  They are merely what I recall from the presentation.  Walking back from class and seeing campus also reminded me a few cool points I initially omitted.

-This also reminded me of an interesting point he brought up about a campus wide theme.  He showed an aerial picture taken in 1962 and pointed out the 5 buildings purchased or built in the 1920's.  There was the original Marquette property by Straz tower where the highway is now.  And I don't remember exactly what the other four were but one of them was a building on 16th and Wisconsin.  One was the Old Marquette Gym and one was a building on 15th and Michigan.  He said that there was obviously a long term plan even from pretty early ambitions to have a pretty large campus.

-When the science buildings were built 14th and 15th still went through which also limited their ability to do a lot with the properties.

-"Michigan Ave" will once again be somewhat present on campus.  It will extend from the North side of Eckstein hall to the back of Gesu for a drop off location for the church.  It will also run in between the rec center and the south end of the new engineering building.

-The first phase of the engineering building will be mostly lab space.  So Haggerty and Olin will still be utilized for class space

-The top two floors of the new engineering building will be unfurnished to start.  There is a contribution of 25 million at 1 million per year for 25 yrs.  The initial 35 mil will be enough to building the entire building but not furnish the top floors.  Instead of going into debt, the money that will be coming in will be used to fund the furnishing of the building.


-

[radome]

One was the Old Marquette Gym

Were any plans for the old gym mentioned?

[GGGG]

-The top two floors of the new engineering building will be unfurnished to start.  There is a contribution of 25 million at 1 million per year for 25 yrs.  The initial 35 mil will be enough to building the entire building but not furnish the top floors.  Instead of going into debt, the money that will be coming in will be used to fund the furnishing of the building.

This is really odd.  Can't they bond the donation over 25 years to get about $15 million to furnish the top floors?  The value of that $1 million goes down over time.

[Coleman]

If they got rid of the Old Gym they'd have to find new space for all the ROTC programs. I think that's where they all are located.

[Brewtown Andy]

There is also that middle stairwell on the west side of the building, Pretty sure it's locked. Either way traffic flow sucks in that building. Also 'that one stairwell" can't reach the 2nd floor either.

The midhallway stairs should be open during regular business hours, and, yes, like the eastern and southwestern stairs, it doesn't allow access to the 2nd floor.

I didn't know the MUTV and WMUR offices were all put in the basement. I knew the trib was down there. I still thought MTUV was 3rd floor? and WMUR was 4th... or is it 2nd and 3rd.

Nope, everything was moved downstairs.  Centralized location and all.  Complete remodel for the space, too.

[Brewtown Andy]

If they got rid of the Old Gym they'd have to find new space for all the ROTC programs. I think that's where they all are located.

Air Force is in 707.

More importantly though, they'd have to find locker room space for every sport except both basketball teams and the women's volleyball team.

[MUBurrow]

I like to think there would be room in the AL for them?  Otherwise thats really poor foresight if the Marquette Gym space gets converted.

[Brewtown Andy]

I like to think there would be room in the AL for them?  Otherwise thats really poor foresight if the Marquette Gym space gets converted.

The Al does not have extra space for the 7 extra locker rooms needed, not to mention the office space for the coaches.

[Dr. Blackheart]

MU's 5.6% increase is small potatoes.  Public universities are scrambling to cover costs due to funding cutbacks.  Looking out, the tuition gap between public and private will close quickly.  You need to consider quality, and MU has invested there and needs to continue to increase that investment via endowments.   Simply stated, all four year degrees are not the same, and aren't treated the same by prospective employers.  

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35185920/

"Big private universities, powered by tuition and endowment increases, have increased spending dramatically while public schools have languished. Total educational spending per student at private research universities has jumped by almost 10 percent since 2002 to more than $33,000. During that same period, public university total spending was comparatively flat and totaled less than $14,000 a year.

That growing gap between rich schools and poor schools worries observers like Wellman. The cost of attending a public university, even after subtracting out aid and inflation, rose more than 15 percent in the last five years, according to the College Board. But almost all of the recent price increases at public universities are "backfilling for cuts in state funds," Wellman says."


http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/2009/01/15/the-surprising-causes-of-those-college-tuition-hikes.html

[Dr. Blackheart]

-McCormick hall is out dated yes. Back when students came to college in the 60's they brought some clothes, some books, and maybe a shoe rack. Much different from what a college student brings today. The size of rooms wasn't an issue then compared to now. It is far too effecient at housing students to be removed as a housing option as long as students want to live there. (Believe it or not students these days do. It is the hardest dorm to get into and always has had a waiting list since I've been here.  Partying- that is what McCormick is known for these days.).

McCormick was allegedly built to be singles...with a twin tower adjoining it to create a unified complex.  It was outdated the day it opened.  Jail cells give death row inmates more space. 

[mu_hilltopper]

   Simply stated, all four year degrees are not the same, and aren't treated the same by prospective employers. 

I thought the same way.  16 years of private education.  Then I got a job, and the guys working with me?  From UWM?  UW-Stout?  UW-Whitewater, Madison, Green Bay? 

They turned out to be pretty smart too.  My attitude that I'd be treated differently changed pretty quickly, when they worked as hard as I did, was as smart as I was.

While I do believe a Marquette education yields unique benefits .. so does a UW system (Madison especially) education.    And while MU grads, or private school grads in general, may take care of their own .. so do the UW and public school grads.

And when you consider the UW system alumni base is what, 10 times Marquette's .. Prospective employers treat public/private degrees differently, you say?   Might not be what you expected when there's 10x more people interviewing you who thought their public education was pretty good too.

We'd all like to believe that our educational choices were the best ones, and our more expensive and exclusive degrees give us a leg up on everyone else, but in the end, the biggest determining factor is what kind of man (woman) you are -- by far.   

[GGGG]

I thought the same way.  16 years of private education.  Then I got a job, and the guys working with me?  From UWM?  UW-Stout?  UW-Whitewater, Madison, Green Bay? 

They turned out to be pretty smart too.  My attitude that I'd be treated differently changed pretty quickly, when they worked as hard as I did, was as smart as I was.

While I do believe a Marquette education yields unique benefits .. so does a UW system (Madison especially) education.    And while MU grads, or private school grads in general, may take care of their own .. so do the UW and public school grads.

And when you consider the UW system alumni base is what, 10 times Marquette's .. Prospective employers treat public/private degrees differently, you say?   Might not be what you expected when there's 10x more people interviewing you who thought their public education was pretty good too.

We'd all like to believe that our educational choices were the best ones, and our more expensive and exclusive degrees give us a leg up on everyone else, but in the end, the biggest determining factor is what kind of man (woman) you are -- by far.   

IMO, where you get your degree matters for your first position...the rest is up to you.  When I am hiring people for higher level jobs, I look to see *if* they have a degree, and the rest is all experience and personality.  I don't care where they get the degree...Harvard, Marquette, UW-Superior or Upper Iowa.  My experience tells me that there is no correlation between alma mater and job performance.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

I thought the same way.  16 years of private education.  Then I got a job, and the guys working with me?  From UWM?  UW-Stout?  UW-Whitewater, Madison, Green Bay? 

They turned out to be pretty smart too.  My attitude that I'd be treated differently changed pretty quickly, when they worked as hard as I did, was as smart as I was.

While I do believe a Marquette education yields unique benefits .. so does a UW system (Madison especially) education.    And while MU grads, or private school grads in general, may take care of their own .. so do the UW and public school grads.

And when you consider the UW system alumni base is what, 10 times Marquette's .. Prospective employers treat public/private degrees differently, you say?   Might not be what you expected when there's 10x more people interviewing you who thought their public education was pretty good too.

We'd all like to believe that our educational choices were the best ones, and our more expensive and exclusive degrees give us a leg up on everyone else, but in the end, the biggest determining factor is what kind of man (woman) you are -- by far.   

Bingo ... it really hits home when you go out to interview. What do you think the chances are of interviewing with a Big 10 alum somewhere in the Midwest versus a Marquette (and obv. to a less extent BE) alum? It has to be 25 to 1. And yes, Big 10 alums "look out for one another." It's not like Marquette invented the concept of interest in younger alums by older alumns.

[4everwarriors]

Bottom line is MU is a nice, middle of the road private university, nothing more, nothing less. It's not the cat's meow. Nothing wrong with that however.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Bottom line is MU is a nice, middle of the road private university, nothing more, nothing less. It's not the cat's meow. Nothing wrong with that however.

Exactly, which with the public schools charging more and more makes MU more attractive.  To compare job levels when we graduated to those in the future is misleading as the gap will widen as public spending dwindles.  Ivy League, Stanford, Duke, NU will always get the students, but MU will pull more and more from public.  UW will face a tough road as they are forced to cut as the taxpayer burden increases.  What about Michigan and the ability of taxpayers to support the school system in that state? 

In a few short years, the majority of college aged students will be minorities, and the first in their families to go to college...very different than for us.  Blue collar jobs will be disappearing and the value of a college degree will be even more valuable than when we graduated.  MU isn't for every kid, but the value of teaching students to actually think will be invaluable. 

Start saving now, get aid when the time is right, send your wife back to work, have a bi-monthly 15 year mortgage, save your inheritance, and give your kid an experience of a lifetime wherever that may be based on their field of study.  It is the most important choice for your kid's future.  MU will be fine...and the more they invest now, the better MU's future will be. 

[mu_hilltopper]

Exactly, which with the public schools charging more and more makes MU more attractive. 

Ah, that's the plan?  Since Public tuition is growing faster (recently), eventually they'll be even .. well, that's true.

For grins and chuckles, I was wondering how that math worked.  Using figures from InsideHigherEd, avg. private 4 year is $26k, Public is $7k.   Last year, public tuition went up 6.5%, while private went up 4.4%, a difference of 2.1%.  (Although two years ago, the gap was just .5%.)

Let's use the 6.5%, 4.4% increase numbers for best case (for privates) scenario, as the gap would narrow "quicker."

Somewhere in the year 2077, public tuition will finally be higher than private.  $472k per year to $477k per year!

While technically correct, that public tuition costs are "catching up" to private .. even 50 years from now, public education will cost 1/3rd less.   I guess if you take the really really long term view, that's a good strategy.

On the other hand, if $472k per year is out of the reach of everyone in 2077, well, both systems are screwed.

[GGGG]

Ah, that's the plan?  Since Public tuition is growing faster (recently), eventually they'll be even .. well, that's true.

For grins and chuckles, I was wondering how that math worked.  Using figures from InsideHigherEd, avg. private 4 year is $26k, Public is $7k.   Last year, public tuition went up 6.5%, while private went up 4.4%, a difference of 2.1%.  (Although two years ago, the gap was just .5%.)

Let's use the 6.5%, 4.4% increase numbers for best case (for privates) scenario, as the gap would narrow "quicker."

Somewhere in the year 2077, public tuition will finally be higher than private.  $472k per year to $477k per year!

While technically correct, that public tuition costs are "catching up" to private .. even 50 years from now, public education will cost 1/3rd less.   I guess if you take the really really long term view, that's a good strategy.

On the other hand, if $472k per year is out of the reach of everyone in 2077, well, both systems are screwed.

hilltopper, you are continuing to make the mistake that it is not the list price that matters...it's the discount.  Private schools generally have larger endowments, and can therefore do more to offer merit or financial based aid than publics can.

[mu_hilltopper]

Here's some data from InsideCollegeEd:

The College Board data for this year show that students at private colleges receive an average of $14,400 in total grant aid and federal tax breaks, meaning that the net price of tuition is about $11,900 on average.

At public four-year colleges, average grant packages and tax breaks total about $5,400, reducing average net tuition and fees (for in-state residents) to about $1,600.

Fine.  I'll take "net price" and increase it by 6.5% and 4.4% every year.  Now it takes 101 years for public tuition to equal private.  (At which time the "net price" which you believe is important .. is $882,000 per year ..

Now, I imagine to make it perfect, you'd also factor in the increase "gap" in grants/aid from private to public .. not sure how to find that information.  Regardless of that number?  It's gonna take decades before public school tuition is on par with private.  Not a winning strategy.

Meanwhile .. household median income, which has petered out over the past decade, hovers in the 1-2% increase range.   So the $64k question is .. does "net price" increase at 1-2%?  Or closer to 4-6%?   My guess is 4-6%, doubling the income growth rate, meaning tuition becomes more unaffordable every day that clicks by.

edit: oops, c/affordable/unaffordable

[martyconlonontherun]

I compare private colleges to private high schools. The education is there at either school and one doesn't prepare you that much better than the other.

I went to Racine Horlick and received an education equal to, if not better, than Racine St. Cat's. The difference is that a lot of my friends got left behind. I don't want to sound prejudice but there are a lot of lower class students at Racine Horlick and it can be easy to get sucked in. Lots of friends dropping out, getting pregnant, etc. Whereas at St. Cats, that is less likely to happen.

I don't think Marquette's education is any better, but I feel you are less likely to fail.