http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2014/04/24/west-coast-conference-the-search-for-a-commissioner/
I can see this.
Too bad he isn't being considered for something where he'd have some at least semi-frequent contact with the ACC.
I can't. He is the least diplomatic 'executive' for a role that requires deft political skills. Williams needs something that requires little interaction with others - subordinates and semi-autonomous constituencies alike.
He failed running Marquette's program. I highly doubt the WCC would see him as commissioner material. Hopefully, Williams would get the names of the member school leadership correct for an interview.
Quote from: keefe on April 28, 2014, 10:24:42 AM
I can't. He is the least diplomatic 'executive' for a role that requires deft political skills. Williams needs something that requires little interaction with others - subordinates and semi-autonomous constituencies alike.
He failed running Marquette's program. I highly doubt the WCC would see him as commissioner material. Hopefully, Williams would get the names of the member school leadership correct for an interview.
Yeah, Larry should be legal counsel for a conference.....
Quote from: Nukem2 on April 28, 2014, 10:28:56 AM
Yeah, Larry should be legal counsel for a conference.....
The end of off-color chants as we know them...
Quote from: tower912 on April 28, 2014, 09:23:34 AM
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2014/04/24/west-coast-conference-the-search-for-a-commissioner/
I can see this.
Zaninovich is a good guy, that hurts the WCC a bit unless they can find a solid replacement. In my view, he was going to be the guy to tell Gonzaga to pound sand if the Zags wanted to park basketball in the Big East and the rest of their sports staying in the WCC. For all I know, he sent that message to Gonzaga, he would have been a fool not to.
I would be surprised that they would limit their search to the three named candidates. Incest is never pretty.
Quote from: keefe on April 28, 2014, 10:24:42 AM
I can't. He is the least diplomatic 'executive' for a role that requires deft political skills. Williams needs something that requires little interaction with others - subordinates and semi-autonomous constituencies alike.
He failed running Marquette's program. I highly doubt the WCC would see him as commissioner material. Hopefully, Williams would get the names of the member school leadership correct for an interview.
I enjoyed my conversations with Larry. He was bit gruff but has a great mind for strategy. The rebirth of the Big East would not have happened if Williams was not involved. I think he would do fine at this position. However, I do think there are more qualified candidates out there.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on April 28, 2014, 11:39:43 AM
The rebirth of the Big East would not have happened if Williams was not involved.
Really? This happened because of Georgetown. Saxa Hoya.
Quote from: keefe on April 28, 2014, 11:42:30 AM
Really? This happened because of Georgetown. Saxa Hoya.
Georgetown was the last of the Catholic 7 to join. They dug in their heels and stalled. They were praying for an ACC invite but it went to Notre Dame instead.
Quote from: keefe on April 28, 2014, 11:42:30 AM
Really? This happened because of Georgetown. Saxa Hoya.
this couldn't be more wrong. This happened inspite of georgetown. They wanted nothing to do with it. It happened because of Larry, Pilarz and the villanova AD and President.
Quote from: keefe on April 28, 2014, 11:42:30 AM
Really? This happened because of Georgetown. Saxa Hoya.
Not true keefe. They were last in line and the rest of the Catholic 7 still harbor some resentment.
Folks can moan all they want about Larry's relationship with Buzz and his public image. Truth be known, he had a great deal to do with the creation of the new Big East.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 28, 2014, 11:27:22 AM
Zaninovich is a good guy, that hurts the WCC a bit unless they can find a solid replacement. In my view, he was going to be the guy to tell Gonzaga to pound sand if the Zags wanted to park basketball in the Big East and the rest of their sports staying in the WCC. For all I know, he sent that message to Gonzaga, he would have been a fool not to.
It did/would have happened. At a minimum they were going to have to pay to play.
I had a number of quality conversations with Larry. He was a lot smarter than most realize. He was financially astute and had major concerns about the new conference. He believed that winning and attendance was the surest way to insure success. He watched non-conference play of league teams with close vigilance and was extremely worried about MSG attendance. He knew Creighton would carry its success the first year (which it did) but needed to generate enthusiasm going forward. Marquette is a so-so traveler.
He did walk into an athletic situation that was lacking plans with regard to the introduction of Lacrosse and the huge funding associated with it. Truly worried about expansion to SMU and other areas, not for basketball, but for the costs associated with all of the other non-revenue sports. They don't like taking school buses to Gonzaga, for example.
Did he fit in, maybe not. Was he intelligent, yes.
Quote from: Warhawk Warrior on April 28, 2014, 12:15:24 PM
I had a number of quality conversations with Larry. He was a lot smarter than most realize. He was financially astute and had major concerns about the new conference. He believed that winning and attendance was the surest way to insure success. He watched non-conference play of league teams with close vigilance and was extremely worried about MSG attendance. He knew Creighton would carry its success the first year (which it did) but needed to generate enthusiasm going forward. Marquette is a so-so traveler.
He did walk into an athletic situation that was lacking plans with regard to the introduction of Lacrosse and the huge funding associated with it. Truly worried about expansion to SMU and other areas, not for basketball, but for the costs associated with all of the other non-revenue sports. They don't like taking school buses to Gonzaga, for example.
Did he fit in, maybe not. Was he intelligent, yes.
That's because his predecessor had no experience in that area IMO
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on April 28, 2014, 11:53:13 AM
Georgetown was the last of the Catholic 7 to join.
Exactly. Read what I wrote. But it wasn't because they were not interested. Quite the contrary.
Quote from: jsglow on April 28, 2014, 11:58:04 AM
Not true keefe. They were last in line and the rest of the Catholic 7 still harbor some resentment.
Georgetown knew all along that the BE was the last, best hope. And they were never against the BE but were insistent on certain elements. At the end of the day both sides made concessions (Creighton) and the league happened. But without GU there was no BE and everyone knew it.
And yes, there are some very hard feelings but hardly with all of the others. GU is the top dog for a number of reasons. They had leverage, knew it, and used it. I wouldn't overstate William's role in all of this. He was involved as the MU rep but I would not characterize his involvement as essential, vital, or definitive.
As for GU exploring other potentialities that is certainly true. But that should be the norm in such cases so I would hardly cast stones for their having done so. From what I understand their starting point was to be a part of the break away group but they modeled other end games. To do so is more than just prudent.
And if anyone faults GU for looking at other end games then they must not be aware of discussions between GU and SJU. Personally, I am glad those two schools joined the BE but there is more to this story.
I guess your sources in the athletic department didn't understand how much Cottingham had worked on this, in conjunction with Broeker and others. Of course, the intro of lacrosse was left in Larry's lap when Cottingham was wrongly terminated so he bitched about it. The program has been quite successful since, as Cottingham contemplated, and got MU back to recruiting areas for regular students where we had traditionally recruited: East coast and Chicago suburbs. The truth is funding has proven tough but that is across the board right now. Larry started work on building and funding a new field house that would include lacrosse and the soccer teams before he was canned, so it could not have been that bad.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 28, 2014, 12:17:56 PM
That's because his predecessor had no experience in that area IMO
Quote from: Gato78 on April 28, 2014, 01:13:26 PM
I guess your sources in the athletic department didn't understand how much Cottingham had worked on this, in conjunction with Broeker and others. Of course, the intro of lacrosse was left in Larry's lap when Cottingham was wrongly terminated so he bitched about it. The program has been quite successful since, as Cottingham contemplated, and got MU back to recruiting areas for regular students where we had traditionally recruited: East coast and Chicago suburbs. The truth is funding has proven tough but that is across the board right now. Larry started work on building and funding a new field house that would include lacrosse and the soccer teams before he was canned, so it could not have been that bad.
He repeatly mentioned the Field House in his Q&A Session at the last NYC Circles event. Knowing the Milwaukee weather, it still sounds like a great idea.
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on April 28, 2014, 01:25:20 PM
He repeatly mentioned the Field House in his Q&A Session at the last NYC Circles event. Knowing the Milwaukee weather, it still sounds like a great idea.
Michigan football under Bo struggled in Bowls and Schembechler correctly reasoned that a major factor was the lack of an indoor practice facility. Bo went to Canham with a plan and the first indoor practice facility was built. Michigan recently completed the Glick, making it one of only two schools with indoor practice facilities.
The lacrosse team has actually had a pretty good season so far. I've even heard talks of coach Amplo winning national coach of the year.
Quote from: Gato78 on April 28, 2014, 01:13:26 PM
I guess your sources in the athletic department didn't understand how much Cottingham had worked on this, in conjunction with Broeker and others. Of course, the intro of lacrosse was left in Larry's lap when Cottingham was wrongly terminated so he bitched about it. The program has been quite successful since, as Cottingham contemplated, and got MU back to recruiting areas for regular students where we had traditionally recruited: East coast and Chicago suburbs. The truth is funding has proven tough but that is across the board right now. Larry started work on building and funding a new field house that would include lacrosse and the soccer teams before he was canned, so it could not have been that bad.
Cottingham was a friend of mine. But he was not wrongly terminated.
Quote from: keefe on April 28, 2014, 12:26:18 PM
Exactly. Read what I wrote. But it wasn't because they were not interested. Quite the contrary.
I see what your saying. And you're right, we shouldn't cast stones. We tested the waters with the ACC, B1G, and Big 12 to see if any would be interested in a basketball only member. They weren't.
We can argue about what adjective to use to describe Larry's involvement, but he was extremely important. He was the bulldog who helped make sure the other schools got in line. He also made sure the new schools were ones that Marquette approved of.
Quote from: Gato78 on April 28, 2014, 01:13:26 PM
I guess your sources in the athletic department didn't understand how much Cottingham had worked on this, in conjunction with Broeker and others. Of course, the intro of lacrosse was left in Larry's lap when Cottingham was wrongly terminated so he bitched about it. The program has been quite successful since, as Cottingham contemplated, and got MU back to recruiting areas for regular students where we had traditionally recruited: East coast and Chicago suburbs. The truth is funding has proven tough but that is across the board right now. Larry started work on building and funding a new field house that would include lacrosse and the soccer teams before he was canned, so it could not have been that bad.
I'm quite aware of it. The strategic study started back in 2010....actually started prior to Cottingham back in the day and cycled through several administrations when determining what to do with Men's Wrestling, rifle, etc. Studies were done on feasbility of women's softball, golf, etc. I get why it was done, understand the strategic thinking behind it with the growth of the sport and trying to be an earlier adopter into the sport.
Like questions of law, one lawyer sees something one way and another lawyer sees something quite the opposite, yet both claim they are right.
My concern is the cost benefit evaluation, exit strategy, etc. The sports were also added with the old Big East in mind. IMO
Why do you say that? Are you really his friend? You understand who directed the player to talk to the woman, right?
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on April 28, 2014, 02:30:38 PM
Cottingham was a friend of mine. But he was not wrongly terminated.
Cottingham directed that strategic study because he was the Athletic Director at the time. Lacrosse was instituted because, in part, the club program was very popular and it was meant, in some respects, as a poison pill to separate us from DePaul and Seton Hall with an eye toward the shaky future of conferences. If someone was going to get kicked out of the BIG EAST Conference, it was less likely to be us. He knew what he was doing, it just broke in an unexpected way. No one thought Syracuse and Pitt would defect. At the time, it was more likely the Big 12 would implode and we would get Kansas and Kansas State.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 28, 2014, 02:50:00 PM
I'm quite aware of it. The strategic study started back in 2010....actually started prior to Cottingham back in the day and cycled through several administrations when determining what to do with Men's Wrestling, rifle, etc. Studies were done on feasbility of women's softball, golf, etc. I get why it was done, understand the strategic thinking behind it with the growth of the sport and trying to be an earlier adopter into the sport.
Like questions of law, one lawyer sees something one way and another lawyer sees something quite the opposite, yet both claim they are right.
My concern is the cost benefit evaluation, exit strategy, etc. The sports were also added with the old Big East in mind. IMO
Quote from: Gato78 on April 28, 2014, 02:54:46 PM
Why do you say that? Are you really his friend? You understand who directed the player to talk to the woman, right?
I am painfully aware of more than I wish I knew about that whole situation.
Feel free to PM me with the details.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on April 28, 2014, 03:35:56 PM
I am painfully aware of more than I wish I knew about that whole situation.
Quote from: Gato78 on April 28, 2014, 03:55:36 PM
Feel free to PM me with the details.
Me too if you're handing out info.
Please add me too
Larry Williams was the AD of a WCC school. They know full well his background and his positives and negatives. I think he would be fine in that role.
Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on April 28, 2014, 04:39:36 PM
Larry Williams was the AD of a WCC school. They know full well his background and his positives and negatives. I think he would be fine in that role.
And Williams was fired for a reason as the AD at Marquette. His currency is diminished and I rather doubt he will be considered by the WCC to lead them.
If the cat walks inta the interview with that salt stained hat on, he fookin' toast.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on April 28, 2014, 06:13:56 PM
If the cat walks inta the interview with that salt stained hat on, he fookin' toast.
Better than screwing up their names...
Quote from: keefe on April 28, 2014, 05:56:28 PM
And Williams was fired for a reason as the AD at Marquette. His currency is diminished and I rather doubt he will be considered by the WCC to lead them.
He was fired because he didn't do well at the relationship-aspects of his position, and because he was being asked to change a culture at an organization that wasn't receptive to change.
Many solid professionals fail in one position only to excel at another that fits their talents. Williams' talents to me seem suited toward being a mid-major conference commissioner.
Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on April 28, 2014, 07:21:05 PM
He was fired because he didn't do well at the relationship-aspects of his position, and because he was being asked to change a culture at an organization that wasn't receptive to change.
Many solid professionals fail in one position only to excel at another that fits their talents. Williams' talents to me seem suited toward being a mid-major conference commissioner.
Senior executive roles are all about managing relationships. And if you are asked by your shareholders to drive change in an organization, you make that happen effectively and efficiently.
Williams suffered catastrophic failure in his time at Marquette. His weaknesses are precisely why he would not be considered for even greater responsibility. There are reasons people fail in positions of significant trust. But Williams' failures were entirely manageable and his inability to recognize and adjust make his shortcomings even more egregious.
Quote from: keefe on April 28, 2014, 08:31:32 PM
Senior executive roles are all about managing relationships. And if you are asked by your shareholders to drive change in an organization, you make that happen effectively and efficiently.
Williams suffered catastrophic failure in his time at Marquette. His weaknesses are precisely why he would not be considered for even greater responsibility. There are reasons people fail in positions of significant trust. But Williams' failures were entirely manageable and his inability to recognize and adjust make his shortcomings even more egregious.
On what are you basing your assessment of LW? Have you ever met the guy? What knowledge have you obtained besides reading a couple of articles and participating in gossip and conjecture on this board?
Quote from: warriorchick on April 28, 2014, 08:36:00 PM
On what are you basing your assessment of LW? Have you ever met the guy? What knowledge have you obtained besides reading a couple of articles and participating in gossip and conjecture on this board?
Yeah, LW may have been a bad fit here. But, that does not make him a failure...
Quote from: keefe on April 28, 2014, 08:31:32 PM
Senior executive roles are all about managing relationships. And if you are asked by your shareholders to drive change in an organization, you make that happen effectively and efficiently.
Williams suffered catastrophic failure in his time at Marquette. His weaknesses are precisely why he would not be considered for even greater responsibility. There are reasons people fail in positions of significant trust. But Williams' failures were entirely manageable and his inability to recognize and adjust make his shortcomings even more egregious.
See, I am not sure that the commissioner of the WCC is a position of "greater responsibility" than Marquette's athletic director.
I see it as a very different responsibility...one that fits his talents better.
Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on April 28, 2014, 08:40:56 PM
See, I am not sure that the commissioner of the WCC is a position of "greater responsibility" than Marquette's athletic director.
I see it as a very different responsibility...one that fits his talents better.
I would agree...
Quote from: warriorchick on April 28, 2014, 08:36:00 PM
On what are you basing your assessment of LW? Have you ever met the guy? What knowledge have you obtained besides reading a couple of articles and participating in gossip and conjecture on this board?
I have not met Williams but can there be any debate that his time at Marquette was a failure? Less than two years at the helm is an unmitigated disaster - whether at GE Capital or running a Wendy's.
And while I have not met the man, I did not need to as I have several first hand accounts of his tenure and the ridiculous chaos that characterized his time at Marquette.
As I said, senior executive assignments are 100% about managing relationships. That's been my experience in both the military and the private sector. When the national press routinely reported there was disharmony within the Athletic Department at my alma mater I took that as prima facie evidence that the man running that organization was failing.
Perhaps you missed the many articles detailing the open rift between Williams and his most important subordinate? Either this was a massive conspiracy aimed at undermining Williams' professional reputation or there was substance to the reporting. It is a fallacy to suggest that since I did not know the man personally I could not possibly pass judgment as there is significant empiricism on this in the public domain.
I understand you and Glow might have had a relationship with him given your support of the university. But I would caution against letting that familiarity cloud your perspective. One of the most difficult matters I ever had to attend to involved relieving a friend who was failing in his professional responsibilities. While wholly unpleasant it was necessary because the shareholders of the General Electric Corporation expected no less. And at no time did I ever let personal sentiment interfere with professional responsibility.
So how would
you characterize his tenure at Marquette?
Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on April 28, 2014, 08:40:56 PM
See, I am not sure that the commissioner of the WCC is a position of "greater responsibility" than Marquette's athletic director.
I see it as a very different responsibility...one that fits his talents better.
I guess that would depend on one's perspective, wouldn't it?
Quote from: keefe on April 28, 2014, 09:05:25 PM
I guess that would depend on one's perspective, wouldn't it?
Sure, but not necessarily YOUR perspective...?
Quote from: Nukem2 on April 28, 2014, 09:10:17 PM
Sure, but not necessarily YOUR perspective...?
I think a conference commissioner ranks higher in the pecking order but that is just opinion.
Quote from: keefe on April 28, 2014, 09:18:15 PM
I think a conference commissioner ranks higher in the pecking order but that is just opinion.
WCC..nah. Just my opinion. Some of these slots are just administrative stuff...
Quote from: Nukem2 on April 28, 2014, 09:20:56 PM
WCC..nah. Just my opinion. Some of these slots are just administrative stuff...
I get that perspective, too. But if anything a commish needs to be the consummate diplomat and I am not certain that is The Goatee's strong suit. His reign at MU was marked by significant turbulence, something member schools don't need from their conference leadership.
Bill Cords showed up with a pail, shovel, broom, and dust pan. God bless him.
Quote from: keefe on April 28, 2014, 09:26:42 PM
I get that perspective, too. But if anything a commish needs to be the consummate diplomat and I am not certain that is The Goatee's strong suit. His reign at MU was marked by significant turbulence, something member schools don't need from their conference leadership.
Part of his troubles were his own doing. Part of them were due to things he was asked to do that the Marquette community was not ready for.
The problem I have with your statements regarding LW is that you seem to think that he was a complete incompetent. And while I agree he was out of his depth, I think a great deal of it was simply a bad fit. He has been considered a success wherever he has been prior to Marquette. From what I know about mid-major conference management, I think his skill set would be good for the WCC.
Quote from: keefe on April 28, 2014, 09:04:27 PM
I have not met Williams but can there be any debate that his time at Marquette was a failure? Less than two years at the helm is an unmitigated disaster - whether at GE Capital or running a Wendy's.
And while I have not met the man, I did not need to as I have several first hand accounts of his tenure and the ridiculous chaos that characterized his time at Marquette.
As I said, senior executive assignments are 100% about managing relationships. That's been my experience in both the military and the private sector. When the national press routinely reported there was disharmony within the Athletic Department at my alma mater I took that as prima facie evidence that the man running that organization was failing.
Perhaps you missed the many articles detailing the open rift between Williams and his most important subordinate? Either this was a massive conspiracy aimed at undermining Williams' professional reputation or there was substance to the reporting. It is a fallacy to suggest that since I did not know the man personally I could not possibly pass judgment as there is significant empiricism on this in the public domain.
I understand you and Glow might have had a relationship with him given your support of the university. But I would caution against letting that familiarity cloud your perspective. One of the most difficult matters I ever had to attend to involved relieving a friend who was failing in his professional responsibilities. While wholly unpleasant it was necessary because the shareholders of the General Electric Corporation expected no less. And at no time did I ever let personal sentiment interfere with professional responsibility.
So how would you characterize his tenure at Marquette?
You initially said that Williams "suffered colossal failure". That suggests the failure was his. The situation was indeed a failure based on the length of his tenure. I think the failure was mostly on the part of certain members of the administration and the athletic department.
Others have itemized his accomplishments, so I don't feel the need to rehash. I am not privy to any special inside information. However, I do believe that Larry was not allowed to do his job in the way he believed was appropriate, realized that situation was not likely to change, and left as a result.
warriorchick....LW was essentially fired.
Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on April 28, 2014, 09:42:28 PM
warriorchick....LW was essentially fired.
Whatever...that doesn't change my point that Larry wasn't allowed to run the department the way he thought best, and I am not so sure the administration was 100% in the right on this.
Quote from: warriorchick on April 28, 2014, 09:41:08 PM
You initially said that Williams "suffered colossal failure". That suggests the failure was his. The situation was indeed a failure based on the length of his tenure. I think the failure was mostly on the part of certain members of the administration and the athletic department.
Others have itemized his accomplishments, so I don't feel the need to rehash. I am not privy to any special inside information. However, I do believe that Larry was not allowed to do his job in the way he believed was appropriate, realized that situation was not likely to change, and left as a result.
I never waivered from my characterization of his failure. Williams was not successful and his hiring was a mistake that cost his shareholders dearly.
Quote from: keefe on April 28, 2014, 09:04:27 PM
I have not met Williams but can there be any debate that his time at Marquette was a failure? Less than two years at the helm is an unmitigated disaster - whether at GE Capital or running a Wendy's.
And while I have not met the man, I did not need to as I have several first hand accounts of his tenure and the ridiculous chaos that characterized his time at Marquette.
As I said, senior executive assignments are 100% about managing relationships. That's been my experience in both the military and the private sector. When the national press routinely reported there was disharmony within the Athletic Department at my alma mater I took that as prima facie evidence that the man running that organization was failing.
Perhaps you missed the many articles detailing the open rift between Williams and his most important subordinate? Either this was a massive conspiracy aimed at undermining Williams' professional reputation or there was substance to the reporting. It is a fallacy to suggest that since I did not know the man personally I could not possibly pass judgment as there is significant empiricism on this in the public domain.
I understand you and Glow might have had a relationship with him given your support of the university. But I would caution against letting that familiarity cloud your perspective. One of the most difficult matters I ever had to attend to involved relieving a friend who was failing in his professional responsibilities. While wholly unpleasant it was necessary because the shareholders of the General Electric Corporation expected no less. And at no time did I ever let personal sentiment interfere with professional responsibility.
So how would you characterize his tenure at Marquette?
The rift was never as big as people made it out to be. The primary source of the rift is in Vagina.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 28, 2014, 11:03:24 PM
is in Vagina.
A place from where every red blooded American male emerges then spends the rest of his life trying to get back into...
Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on April 28, 2014, 07:21:05 PM
Many solid professionals fail in one position only to excel at another that fits their talents.
Your comment made me think of Jimmy Carter. I recently completed
The President's Club, by Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy. Superb read which I recommend highly.
Quote from: warriorchick on April 28, 2014, 09:46:01 PM
Whatever...that doesn't change my point that Larry wasn't allowed to run the department the way he thought best, and I am not so sure the administration was 100% in the right on this.
You guys must have easy names to pronounce aina?
Quote from: Gato78 on April 28, 2014, 01:13:26 PM
I guess your sources in the athletic department didn't understand how much Cottingham had worked on this, in conjunction with Broeker and others. Of course, the intro of lacrosse was left in Larry's lap when Cottingham was wrongly terminated so he bitched about it. The program has been quite successful since, as Cottingham contemplated, and got MU back to recruiting areas for regular students where we had traditionally recruited: East coast and Chicago suburbs. The truth is funding has proven tough but that is across the board right now. Larry started work on building and funding a new field house that would include lacrosse and the soccer teams before he was canned, so it could not have been that bad.
Based on my discussions with Williams I agree with your analysis.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 28, 2014, 11:03:24 PM
The rift was never as big as people made it out to be. The primary source of the rift is in Vagina.
???
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on April 28, 2014, 03:35:56 PM
I am painfully aware of more than I wish I knew about that whole situation.
Sorry to be late to the game but could you also PM me with the details? Thanks, TAMU.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 28, 2014, 11:03:24 PM
The rift was never as big as people made it out to be.
Many here find it fashionable to fault Williams for the problems of the past few years while others put the responsibility squarely on Williams. The fact that Williams could not get along with Williams is baffling and likely the cause of Williams departure from Marquette. Personally, I blame Williams.
Usually, when you have as much turbulence at the top of an organization as our beloved alma mater, the issue is with leadership. President, AD, Dean of Arts and Sciences, Provost, BusAd Dean...all in flux or recent controversy. All of these are BOT issues or hires.
Not sure what the issue might be...too many cooks on the BOT? To many egos?
I'd keep an eye on Mike Lovell. If he becomes a great hire, maybe the BOT has turned a corner. I sure hope so.
Quote from: mu-rara on April 29, 2014, 11:45:25 AM
Usually, when you have as much turbulence at the top of an organization as our beloved alma mater, the issue is with leadership. President, AD, Dean of Arts and Sciences, Provost, BusAd Dean...all in flux or recent controversy. All of these are BOT issues or hires.
Not sure what the issue might be...too many cooks on the BOT? To many egos?
I'd keep an eye on Mike Lovell. If he becomes a great hire, maybe the BOT has turned a corner. I sure hope so.
I was really surprised to see that the BoT has so many people to the point where it is meaningless as a governing entity. 31 members isn't a Board but a Marching Band. There is no such similar structure in the corporate world.
The Pilarz hire was an unmitigated disaster and so too was bringing in LW. Both men alienated too many influential and enthusiastic financial supporters of the university and spent far too much time on the mundane (teaching poetry, student chanting) and the absurd (questionable strategic objectives, useless metrics) that undermined their credibility as senior executives.
Marquette is at a critical juncture in its history and I am not convinced the current governance model with its outlandish size and far too many members lacking in genuine strategic distinction is appropriate for the task at hand. I would further argue that Marquette ought not to have so many alumni as members of the BoT. Genuine perspective is not limited to race or gender.
The size of Marquette's Board isn't likely to be the problem. All sorts of well functioning private university boards have similar size. Most of the difficult decisions on such boards are delegated to an Executive Committee that ranges in the 5-7 member range, and to me that is where the basic problem lies.
The problem is a top-down lack of a strategy that the community has yet to embrace. Look at the last two hires for President. Pilarz and Lovell are completely different in the way they approach and tackle issues. One is a high level intellectual...one is insanely practical. When you whipsaw from one direction to the next, IMO it is a lack of strategy more than anything.
I mean, is Marquette going to be an "elite" school on par with its Catholic cohorts like Georgetown and BC? Or is it going to strive to be a bigger part of Milwaukee and mirror some of the things that Lovell was trying to do at UWM?
Those are very different strategies, and it amazes me that they would change so completely in such a short timeframe.
Quote from: keefe on April 29, 2014, 12:12:34 PM
I was really surprised to see that the BoT has so many people to the point where it is meaningless as a governing entity. 31 members isn't a Board but a Marching Band. There is no such similar structure in the corporate world.
The Pilarz hire was an unmitigated disaster and so too was bringing in LW. Both men alienated too many influential and enthusiastic financial supporters of the university and spent far too much time on the mundane (teaching poetry, student chanting) and the absurd (questionable strategic objectives, useless metrics) that undermined their credibility as senior executives.
Marquette is at a critical juncture in its history and I am not convinced the current governance model with its outlandish size and far too many members lacking in genuine strategic distinction is appropriate for the task at hand. I would further argue that Marquette ought not to have so many alumni as members of the BoT. Genuine perspective is not limited to race or gender.
Easy on the hyperbole. Pilarz was not the right man for the Marquette job but he held down the fort fine for two years. And many of the students loved that he taught a class and lived in on campus housing. If you really think his teaching poetry took up more than 1% of his time than you are mistaken.
You are right about Marquette being at a critical juncture. I'm excited by the Lovell hire. Moving to a man from the private sector is the best course of action. A massive change is coming to higher education. Many private liberal arts institutions will not survive this wave. They must adapt or fail. Over the next few years Marquette must grow their enrollment. They need to expand but also shrink. A lot of the excess will need to be removed. Unnecessary services, positions, and departments must be shrunk. Increased enrollment and decreased bureaucracy will mean lower tuition. This, combined with Marquette's prestige, will allow Marquette to survive. In fact, not just survive but thrive. As the Alverno's, Carroll's, and Cardinal Stritch's of the world begin to fail, Marquette will be able absorb their resources.
That was a long rant to say basically that we should expect Marquette to look less and less like a private liberal arts school and more and more like state school. The key will be to make sure we stay true to our mission and values while we undergo this transformation.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on April 28, 2014, 06:13:56 PM
If the cat walks inta the interview with that salt stained hat on, he fookin' toast.
Lids is hiring I hear. Larry, send your resume to 4never.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on April 29, 2014, 02:45:42 PM
Easy on the hyperbole. Pilarz was not the right man for the Marquette job but he held down the fort fine for two years. And many of the students loved that he taught a class and lived in on campus housing. If you really think his teaching poetry took up more than 1% of his time than you are mistaken.
You are right about Marquette being at a critical juncture. I'm excited by the Lovell hire. Moving to a man from the private sector is the best course of action. A massive change is coming to higher education. Many private liberal arts institutions will not survive this wave. They must adapt or fail. Over the next few years Marquette must grow their enrollment. They need to expand but also shrink. A lot of the excess will need to be removed. Unnecessary services, positions, and departments must be shrunk. Increased enrollment and decreased bureaucracy will mean lower tuition. This, combined with Marquette's prestige, will allow Marquette to survive. In fact, not just survive but thrive. As the Alverno's, Carroll's, and Cardinal Stritch's of the world begin to fail, Marquette will be able absorb their resources.
That was a long rant to say basically that we should expect Marquette to look less and less like a private liberal arts school and more and more like state school. The key will be to make sure we stay true to our mission and values while we undergo this transformation.
Anytime a CEO lasts less than two years it is hugely disruptive for the enterprise. Scott Pilarz was an unmitigated disaster as the leader of Marquette University. Living on campus and teaching a class had nothing to do with his mandate as the CEO. If he had been slaying his performance deliverables then perhaps he could allocate time to address those avocations and interests that fulfilled him as a person. Until then, he had no business wasting a second on anything not prescribed by his shareholders.
We share the view that Marquette is at a critical juncture for reasons both internal and external to the enterprise. I disagree that Lovell is from the private sector - he is a career academician. (Perhaps you meant a lay person?) I also disagree, profoundly, that Marquette must adjust its mission going forward. I understand the need to better leverage fixed costs, possibly through scale, but Marquette will never grow as large as might be necessary to capture the economies you suggest. And reshaping the curriculum to become more of a technical training institution similar to state schools would be the death knell for Marquette.
Marquette is a parochial school with a specific mission. It cannot compete with the large secular universities for a number of reasons. If Marquette deviates from its core mission then it should close down.
Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on April 29, 2014, 01:33:08 PM
The size of Marquette's Board isn't likely to be the problem. All sorts of well functioning private university boards have similar size. Most of the difficult decisions on such boards are delegated to an Executive Committee that ranges in the 5-7 member range, and to me that is where the basic problem lies.
The problem is a top-down lack of a strategy that the community has yet to embrace. Look at the last two hires for President. Pilarz and Lovell are completely different in the way they approach and tackle issues. One is a high level intellectual...one is insanely practical. When you whipsaw from one direction to the next, IMO it is a lack of strategy more than anything.
I mean, is Marquette going to be an "elite" school on par with its Catholic cohorts like Georgetown and BC? Or is it going to strive to be a bigger part of Milwaukee and mirror some of the things that Lovell was trying to do at UWM?
Those are very different strategies, and it amazes me that they would change so completely in such a short timeframe.
I think Marquette is an integral part of Milwaukee but actually has a national mandate. We are likely a step below GU, BC, and UND and I am not certain we can ever establish parity but that shouldn't be the objective. Branding is a very different end point.
Quote from: keefe on April 29, 2014, 03:11:58 PM
We share the view that Marquette is at a critical juncture for reasons both internal and external to the enterprise. I disagree that Lovell is from the private sector - he is a career academician. (Perhaps you meant a lay person?) I also disagree, profoundly, that Marquette must adjust its mission going forward. I understand the need to better leverage fixed costs, possibly through scale, but Marquette will never grow as large as might be necessary to capture the economies you suggest. And reshaping the curriculum to become more of a technical training institution similar to state schools would be the death knell for Marquette.
Marquette is a parochial school with a specific mission. It cannot compete with the large secular universities for a number of reasons. If Marquette deviates from its core mission then it should close down.
I did mean lay person, my mistake.
There is a reason I left Marquette and schools like it. I jumped to Texas A&M because future economics will not allow for private liberal arts schools to survive. Student debt has reached catastrophic levels. That number will have to be negotiated eventually. The federal government will be forced to give out less and less and raise the requirements for qualifying for loans. When the money flow is slowed, students will no longer be able to afford expensive private schools. Universities like Alverno, Cardinal Stritch, and Carroll will suffer and I believe eventually shut down.
Marquette's prestige will help insulate it from a lot of this. People are willing to pay for a Marquette degree. But it will still take its toll. The reality is, it is not responsible for the government or Marquette to allow a student to take out loans to study history at Marquette. A history major will never be able to pay back the loans it will take them in order to attend Marquette. It puts the student in financial distress and the government loses money. They should attend UWM or Parkside if they want to study history.
This doesn't just affect the liberal arts. Why should an engineering major pay Marquette for a degree when they can get a more prestige degree from Texas A&M for about $30,000 less? (This isn't the best comparison because they don't compete for the same students but I knew the tuitions off the top of my head. You could substitute almost any major state school for TAMU).
I think we need to cut a lot of our academic programs. Still offer the liberal arts education but don't offer majors in the liberal arts. Cut down on some of the services as well. You cut those and the money saved can be used to expand enrollment at a lower tuition rate.
I never said we should change our mission. We should always remain a liberal arts institution grounded in Jesuit beliefs. I'm just suggesting a change of structure. I'd argue that my vision actually embraces the mission more than the current structure. Our original purpose was urban education. We have currently priced ourselves out of being able to properly do that.
"Don't offer majors in the liberal arts?"
Many people, including myself, have made fine livings with a liberal arts major. Just because the pathway to a job immediately out of college isn't as clear, that doesn't mean that a liberal arts education can't pay benefits to someone throughout their lifetime.
College cannot always be reduced to a job training program.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on April 29, 2014, 03:46:35 PM
I did mean lay person, my mistake.
There is a reason I left Marquette and schools like it. I jumped to Texas A&M because future economics will not allow for private liberal arts schools to survive. Student debt has reached catastrophic levels. That number will have to be negotiated eventually. The federal government will be forced to give out less and less and raise the requirements for qualifying for loans. When the money flow is slowed, students will no longer be able to afford expensive private schools. Universities like Alverno, Cardinal Stritch, and Carroll will suffer and I believe eventually shut down.
Marquette's prestige will help insulate it from a lot of this. People are willing to pay for a Marquette degree. But it will still take its toll. The reality is, it is not responsible for the government or Marquette to allow a student to take out loans to study history at Marquette. A history major will never be able to pay back the loans it will take them in order to attend Marquette. It puts the student in financial distress and the government loses money. They should attend UWM or Parkside if they want to study history.
This doesn't just affect the liberal arts. Why should an engineering major pay Marquette for a degree when they can get a more prestige degree from Texas A&M for about $30,000 less? (This isn't the best comparison because they don't compete for the same students but I knew the tuitions off the top of my head. You could substitute almost any major state school for TAMU).
I think we need to cut a lot of our academic programs. Still offer the liberal arts education but don't offer majors in the liberal arts. Cut down on some of the services as well. You cut those and the money saved can be used to expand enrollment at a lower tuition rate.
I never said we should change our mission. We should always remain a liberal arts institution grounded in Jesuit beliefs. I'm just suggesting a change of structure. I'd argue that my vision actually embraces the mission more than the current structure. Our original purpose was urban education. We have currently priced ourselves out of being able to properly do that.
How would Marquette be a liberal arts institution without offering majors in the arts and sciences? A traditional arts and sciences education is the backbone of Marquette. My wife was an English major at MU but ended up getting a PhD in a very technical field. She would have told you that the refinement of her critical thinking skills and being able to articulate difficult concepts in a concise manner were the essence of her education rather than being able to quote Joyce. Our daughter was an arts major undergrad and is now doing grad work in public health and medicine.
Eliminating Liberal Arts majors from the Marquette curriculum would be a radical departure from its core mission. One of the crucial lessons I learned in Business School was that it is essential for an enterprise to understand who and what it is and how it can achieve that blissful state of Nirvana as effectively and efficiently as possible.
Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on April 29, 2014, 04:03:16 PM
"Don't offer majors in the liberal arts?"
Many people, including myself, have made fine livings with a liberal arts major. Just because the pathway to a job immediately out of college isn't as clear, that doesn't mean that a liberal arts education can't pay benefits to someone throughout their lifetime.
College cannot always be reduced to a job training program.
The bolded piece is absolutely true. That's why Marquette should keep it's status as a liberal arts univeristy. They will still have and require classes on history, theology, arts, etc. They simply won't allow students to major it in anymore. This will allow the university to downsize those departments immensely.
It is irresponsible to allow students to take massive amounts of loans for majors that have little chance of producing the income to pay those loans back. It is costly to the university, the government, and the student. Up until this point, the federal government has been willing to provide anyone with a student loan provided they have a high school diploma and a pulse. No thought to their ability to pay the loan back. When I worked in a grocery store in high school I worked with several men and women in their 50s who had yet to pay back their student loans. In the near future this will change. Standards will go up and loans will be harder to come by. Students will no longer be able to afford expensive college tuition. We need to find a way to lower tuition in order to stay relevant.
This is a different time we live in. Having a college degree is expected now. What you major in matters. Having a degree in English no longer puts you ahead of others. Everyone has a bachelor's. Of the friends I went to college with, more are currently unemployed or working in retail level jobs than working in a job in their field.
I love the liberal arts. I actually started as a history major myself. Loved it but left when I realized that no one had any use for a history major unless I wanted to be in the classroom. I will fight to keep Marquette a liberal arts institution til the very end. But we NEED to lower tuition. I don't see any other way to do it.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on April 29, 2014, 04:34:19 PM
The bolded piece is absolutely true. That's why Marquette should keep it's status as a liberal arts univeristy. They will still have and require classes on history, theology, arts, etc. They simply won't allow students to major it in anymore. This will allow the university to downsize those departments immensely.
It is irresponsible to allow students to take massive amounts of loans for majors that have little chance of producing the income to pay those loans back. It is costly to the university, the government, and the student. Up until this point, the federal government has been willing to provide anyone with a student loan provided they have a high school diploma and a pulse. No thought to their ability to pay the loan back. When I worked in a grocery store in high school I worked with several men and women in their 50s who had yet to pay back their student loans. In the near future this will change. Standards will go up and loans will be harder to come by. Students will no longer be able to afford expensive college tuition. We need to find a way to lower tuition in order to stay relevant.
This is a different time we live in. Having a college degree is expected now. What you major in matters. Having a degree in English no longer puts you ahead of others. Everyone has a bachelor's. Of the friends I went to college with, more are currently unemployed or working in retail level jobs than working in a job in their field.
I love the liberal arts. I actually started as a history major myself. Loved it but left when I realized that no one had any use for a history major unless I wanted to be in the classroom. I will fight to keep Marquette a liberal arts institution til the very end. But we NEED to lower tuition. I don't see any other way to do it.
I'm a history major...who paid back his loans...who makes a real good living.
The idea that someone has "little chance" to pay-back their student loans from a liberal arts degree isn't as universal a statement as you portray. I don't use the actual history I learned in the classroom everyday, but I certainly use the skills that I used while earning my degree every day.
BTW, ask people who run businesses if they think we should dump liberal arts degrees. My guess is that you would be surprised by their response.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on April 29, 2014, 04:34:19 PM
The bolded piece is absolutely true. That's why Marquette should keep it's status as a liberal arts univeristy. They will still have and require classes on history, theology, arts, etc. They simply won't allow students to major it in anymore. This will allow the university to downsize those departments immensely.
It is irresponsible to allow students to take massive amounts of loans for majors that have little chance of producing the income to pay those loans back. It is costly to the university, the government, and the student. Up until this point, the federal government has been willing to provide anyone with a student loan provided they have a high school diploma and a pulse. No thought to their ability to pay the loan back. When I worked in a grocery store in high school I worked with several men and women in their 50s who had yet to pay back their student loans. In the near future this will change. Standards will go up and loans will be harder to come by. Students will no longer be able to afford expensive college tuition. We need to find a way to lower tuition in order to stay relevant.
This is a different time we live in. Having a college degree is expected now. What you major in matters. Having a degree in English no longer puts you ahead of others. Everyone has a bachelor's. Of the friends I went to college with, more are currently unemployed or working in retail level jobs than working in a job in their field.
I love the liberal arts. I actually started as a history major myself. Loved it but left when I realized that no one had any use for a history major unless I wanted to be in the classroom. I will fight to keep Marquette a liberal arts institution til the very end. But we NEED to lower tuition. I don't see any other way to do it.
This is the kitchen sink approach to describing tertiary education in America today...
The actual % of Americans with a BA/BS is still quite low
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d1/Educational_Attainment_in_the_United_States_2009.png)
Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on April 29, 2014, 04:38:15 PM
I'm a history major...who paid back his loans...who makes a real good living.
The idea that someone has "little chance" to pay-back their student loans from a liberal arts degree isn't as universal a statement as you portray. I don't use the actual history I learned in the classroom everyday, but I certainly use the skills that I used while earning my degree every day.
BTW, ask people who run businesses if they think we should dump liberal arts degrees. My guess is that you would be surprised by their response.
So if your not using what you majored in why does it matter? If you had been a business major who was still forced to take all the general education requirements wouldn't you have still learned those skills that you are using now?
I also don't know what year you graduated. Times are different now.
Quote from: keefe on April 29, 2014, 04:39:16 PM
This is the kitchen sink approach to describing tertiary education in America today...
The actual % of Americans with a BA/BS is still quite low
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d1/Educational_Attainment_in_the_United_States_2009.png)
That graphic is misleading. It includes data for all people 25 and older. Most of the people that it is counting entered the work force a long time ago when standards were different. It wasn't as necessary to get a college degree.
Now around 65% of high school graduates go to college. With a national 6 year graduation rate of about 55% that is slightly over 1 million new college graduates attempting to enter the work force every year. That's a lot of competition.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/hsgec.nr0.htm
Again, the main point is, if standards for student loans raise, students will no longer be able to afford Marquette tuition. Assuming this happens (which I can almost guarantee it will) how can we lower tuition in order to make sure we still get students? Or do you think lowering tuition isn't the answer?
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on April 29, 2014, 04:54:58 PM
That graphic is misleading. It includes data for all people 25 and older. Most of the people that it is counting entered the work force a long time ago when standards were different. It wasn't as necessary to get a college degree.
Now around 65% of high school graduates go to college. With a national 6 year graduation rate of about 55% that is slightly over 1 million new college graduates attempting to enter the work force every year. That's a lot of competition.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/hsgec.nr0.htm
Again, the main point is, if standards for student loans raise, students will no longer be able to afford Marquette tuition. Assuming this happens (which I can almost guarantee it will) how can we lower tuition in order to make sure we still get students? Or do you think lowering tuition isn't the answer?
Are graduated v attended college:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/education/a-sharp-rise-in-americans-with-college-degrees.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
The number is increasing but the vast majority of Americans never get a college degree. Additionally, there are degrees and there are degrees and there are degrees. Is there a qualitative difference between Phoenix grads, State U dash Direction, and Marquette?
In total the numbers are up but there are numerous factors for that and it is highly sensitive to demographics.
QuoteLast year, 33.5 percent of Americans ages 25 to 29 had at least a bachelor's degree, compared with 24.7 percent in 1995, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. In 1975, the share was 21.9 percent.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on April 29, 2014, 04:48:46 PM
So if your not using what you majored in why does it matter? If you had been a business major who was still forced to take all the general education requirements wouldn't you have still learned those skills that you are using now?
I also don't know what year you graduated. Times are different now.
No times are not different now. People had these same conversations about liberal arts degrees when I graduated nearly 25 years ago.
And I didn't want to major in business. Majoring in history didn't hamper me and my career. Why should MU simply eliminate those degrees? You act as if MU is churning out history majors that can't put a career together. But I bet if you went back and surveyed the history majors from 10, 20, 40 years ago, a bunch of them have ended up just fine and used their degree every day.
The key to university study is critical thinking. Otherwise, a university is nothing more than a technical school. The future of education is in great flux. The University of Phoenix model and on line learning threatens the vitality of the university system as well as as the cost of going to a major university. At Marquette, the essence of the university was what used to be Phil 50. It is called something else now but it was the single most critical class because it encompassed critical thinking in the Judeo/Christian ethic. It was and is the heart of a Marquette education. It is that line of thinking that separates Marquette from other schools. A liberal arts degree is still exceptionally important lest we reduce our society to groupings of technocrats.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on April 29, 2014, 02:45:42 PM
Easy on the hyperbole. Pilarz was not the right man for the Marquette job but he held down the fort fine for two years. And many of the students loved that he taught a class and lived in on campus housing. If you really think his teaching poetry took up more than 1% of his time than you are mistaken.
You are right about Marquette being at a critical juncture. I'm excited by the Lovell hire. Moving to a man from the private sector is the best course of action. A massive change is coming to higher education. Many private liberal arts institutions will not survive this wave. They must adapt or fail. Over the next few years Marquette must grow their enrollment. They need to expand but also shrink. A lot of the excess will need to be removed. Unnecessary services, positions, and departments must be shrunk. Increased enrollment and decreased bureaucracy will mean lower tuition. This, combined with Marquette's prestige, will allow Marquette to survive. In fact, not just survive but thrive. As the Alverno's, Carroll's, and Cardinal Stritch's of the world begin to fail, Marquette will be able absorb their resources.
That was a long rant to say basically that we should expect Marquette to look less and less like a private liberal arts school and more and more like state school. The key will be to make sure we stay true to our mission and values while we undergo this transformation.
I agree with your general concept. I think if you look a bit further much of this transformation has already happened. The majority of the majors offered in the school are in various Healthcare specialties, Engineering, Business, Communications and so forth. Yes they have all the classes that a liberal arts school would have and that is a necessary component of growing the entire mind. We have a decent niche as a Nationally recognized university with a Jesuit tradition. The strategic plan the school put out last year to upgrade our status is achievable. The key element is to build the endowment to north of a billion. That allows us to acquire better faculty and have more dollars to compete for higher achieving students. Our athletic department is an essential tool in that whole mission. The Fox contract is very key to our schools long term visibility. Also I think Lacrosse was a very smart move as it puts us in a better neighborhood of schools . Also there is large population of former lacrosse players all through out the East Coast financial establishment. That opens up a lot of doors to our graduates.
Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on April 29, 2014, 07:29:53 PM
No times are not different now. People had these same conversations about liberal arts degrees when I graduated nearly 25 years ago.
And I didn't want to major in business. Majoring in history didn't hamper me and my career. Why should MU simply eliminate those degrees? You act as if MU is churning out history majors that can't put a career together. But I bet if you went back and surveyed the history majors from 10, 20, 40 years ago, a bunch of them have ended up just fine and used their degree every day.
Trust me, times are different now. The amount of student debt and the amount of students defaulting on loans was no where near the level it is at now. Student loan debt in America now outweighs credit card debt as the number one source of debt. It has reached over 1.2 trillion dollars. Not only that, but 21.6% of student loan borrowers are defaulting on loans. When reform comes, and it is coming very soon (next 6 years), students won't be able to afford Marquette's high tuition. I'd argue that we need to find a way to lower our tuition. Otherwise we risk becoming even more elitist than we already are, which takes us even farther away from our true mission of urban education.
We can argue about the value of a history degree all day. But that's not my main point. My point is we need to lower tuition and do it soon. What is your idea for making that happen? Or do you think it is not necessary to lower tuition?
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on April 30, 2014, 08:00:30 AM
Trust me, times are different now. The amount of student debt and the amount of students defaulting on loans was no where near the level it is at now. Student loan debt in America now outweighs credit card debt as the number one source of debt. It has reached over 1.2 trillion dollars. Not only that, but 21.6% of student loan borrowers are defaulting on loans. When reform comes, and it is coming very soon (next 6 years), students won't be able to afford Marquette's high tuition. I'd argue that we need to find a way to lower our tuition. Otherwise we risk becoming even more elitist than we already are, which takes us even farther away from our true mission of urban education.
We can argue about the value of a history degree all day. But that's not my main point. My point is we need to lower tuition and do it soon. What is your idea for making that happen? Or do you think it is not necessary to lower tuition?
Oh I agree that tuition needs to be lowered at every institution. But your solution isn't the way to make it work. First off, liberal arts majors are much cheaper than business or engineering. Simply put those professors cost less. And as I have said, those degrees do pay off. The majority of students that struggle or default with loan debt are those that start school, take out loans, but don't finish school. Those who earn a degree eventually have the income to make that investment worthwhile.
So how do you lower tuition? Well first I think we need to do much better as a society about understanding who are really four year students, and who would be better off starting at a two year school...even if for one year. Having marginal college students attend a junior college or tech school right off the bat is cheaper, credits almost always transfer, and they are able to see if they can handle the work.
Second something needs to be done about the arms race for students. Costs have gone up because higher education is always about one-upping its competition. We need bigger dorms because students don't share bedrooms at home, etc. It would be interesting to see if a four year public school would ever set itself up as a drastic low cost alternative. For instance, what if a school like UW-Stevens Point dropped athletics, didn't upgrade some of its dorms or student life functions, etc. And in the process was able to shave $2,000 or so off a year in tuition and student fees. Would that type of "value" model work? Perhaps state governments, instead of perpetuating the arms race through new building projects, can provide a financial incentives to schools that offer such a model?
And finally something does need to be done about student loans, but I am not sure what. You don't want to completely cut off access because people do need a chance to access the market no matter their economic status. However you don't want to lend to those who won't be able to pay back. Maybe to students with a certain ACT/SAT score can only get financial aid to two year schools until they prove their ability to success academically?
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on April 29, 2014, 04:34:19 PM
The bolded piece is absolutely true. That's why Marquette should keep it's status as a liberal arts univeristy. They will still have and require classes on history, theology, arts, etc. They simply won't allow students to major it in anymore. This will allow the university to downsize those departments immensely.
It is irresponsible to allow students to take massive amounts of loans for majors that have little chance of producing the income to pay those loans back. It is costly to the university, the government, and the student. We need to find a way to lower tuition in order to stay relevant.
This is a different time we live in. Having a college degree is expected now. What you major in matters. Having a degree in English no longer puts you ahead of others. Everyone has a bachelor's. Of the friends I went to college with, more are currently unemployed or working in retail level jobs than working in a job in their field.
I love the liberal arts. I actually started as a history major myself. Loved it but left when I realized that no one had any use for a history major unless I wanted to be in the classroom. I will fight to keep Marquette a liberal arts institution til the very end. But we NEED to lower tuition. I don't see any other way to do it.
TAMU, plenty of good jobs for AS undergrads. Many companies (Northwestern Mutual is one that comes to mind) hire smart people and train them in the insurance industry. Granted, you may begin your career in a call center, but the sky is the limit from there. Keefe is correct. MU needs to stay true to its values.
Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on April 29, 2014, 04:38:15 PM
I'm a history major...who paid back his loans...who makes a real good living.
The idea that someone has "little chance" to pay-back their student loans from a liberal arts degree isn't as universal a statement as you portray. I don't use the actual history I learned in the classroom everyday, but I certainly use the skills that I used while earning my degree every day.
BTW, ask people who run businesses if they think we should dump liberal arts degrees. My guess is that you would be surprised by their response.
Agree
History and Political Science major. Many of the people running our revenue sourced products have a liberal arts degree, though certainly many of us also have either MBAs, or Business minors, etc, but the number of English, Poli Sci, History, Sociology, mathematics degrees is rather striking.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on April 29, 2014, 03:46:35 PM
I did mean lay person, my mistake.
There is a reason I left Marquette and schools like it. I jumped to Texas A&M because future economics will not allow for private liberal arts schools to survive. Student debt has reached catastrophic levels. That number will have to be negotiated eventually. The federal government will be forced to give out less and less and raise the requirements for qualifying for loans. When the money flow is slowed, students will no longer be able to afford expensive private schools. Universities like Alverno, Cardinal Stritch, and Carroll will suffer and I believe eventually shut down.
Marquette's prestige will help insulate it from a lot of this. People are willing to pay for a Marquette degree. But it will still take its toll. The reality is, it is not responsible for the government or Marquette to allow a student to take out loans to study history at Marquette. A history major will never be able to pay back the loans it will take them in order to attend Marquette. It puts the student in financial distress and the government loses money. They should attend UWM or Parkside if they want to study history.
This doesn't just affect the liberal arts. Why should an engineering major pay Marquette for a degree when they can get a more prestige degree from Texas A&M for about $30,000 less? (This isn't the best comparison because they don't compete for the same students but I knew the tuitions off the top of my head. You could substitute almost any major state school for TAMU).
I think we need to cut a lot of our academic programs. Still offer the liberal arts education but don't offer majors in the liberal arts. Cut down on some of the services as well. You cut those and the money saved can be used to expand enrollment at a lower tuition rate.
I never said we should change our mission. We should always remain a liberal arts institution grounded in Jesuit beliefs. I'm just suggesting a change of structure. I'd argue that my vision actually embraces the mission more than the current structure. Our original purpose was urban education. We have currently priced ourselves out of being able to properly do that.
I agree with some of this, but disagree with a bunch, too. The history degree example I know is wrong, as I'm living it and others continue to. You're not pigeonholed with some of those degrees.
I am more worried about someone spending all that money on a degree from a private university that is essentially going into a trade \ career pathed approach. Honestly, if my son were to go to Marquette and major in education, it would be a tough ROI for me to get my head around. You can get to a job as a teacher through much less expensive university programs and since teacher pay is what it is, the ROI (IMO) doesn't make sense. Not sure nursing programs or others also shouldn't be looked at closely.
For majors that can lead to a number of different avenues, my fears are not as strong, though certainly I have concerns about future students having the ability to pay for school or the willingness to take on those debts.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 30, 2014, 05:50:53 PM
Agree
History and Political Science major. Many of the people running our revenue sourced products have a liberal arts degree, though certainly many of us also have either MBAs, or Business minors, etc, but the number of English, Poli Sci, History, Sociology, mathematics degrees is rather striking.
Agree as well. Political Science and Econ via A&S. Doin' alright in the F500.
TAMU Eagle -- play out your earlier scenario a bit further. If MU abolishes A&S majors, does that make a $160K investment in a business degree with a $50K starting salary any more palatable? Same question with a 20% bump in starting salary for engineers. $100K in debt ain't pretty, no matter what your major was.
Bending the cost curve of higher education has to happen, because all but the top 5% are being priced out of the market. The logical conclusion is probably the shuttering of Carroll, Cardinal, Alverno, etc.
How the hell did we wind up talking about this anyway? Superbar this half of the conversation?
Lynn Holzman got the gig for WCC