MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: MUfan12 on October 31, 2018, 07:29:23 PM
-
Shortly after Lawlor left. Somethin' ain't right over at Zilber Hall.
-
"Effective immediately." That is very odd.
-
Chit canned, hey?
-
What's the story ma and pa?
-
What's the story ma and pa?
We got nothing. All of our sources were just as surprised as we were.
Myers was on the court last night with Lovell honoring the Faculty All-Star, just like he does every game.
-
"Effective immediately." That is very odd.
Lovell's quote on this was interesting: “Ultimately, I determined we needed a different combination of skills and perspectives to ensure we fulfill Marquette’s long-term strategic vision of being among the most innovative and accomplished Catholic, Jesuit universities in the world.”
Dave Lawlor resigned to join Gen 3 Capital, a Chicago-based private investment firm, so maybe he wanted to chase the $$$$.
Myers leaving without having a new job lined up is interesting.
-
All pure speculation on my part, but it seems like Lovell is fixated on growth in terms of buildings and capital projects. Wonder if that led to some friction with the academic side.
-
Ziggy
You beat me to it. Hope Ma and P fills is on all the details.
-
What I'm hearing is that Lovell is putting the Aurora fallout and lack of a replacement capital sponsor for the APRC as well as struggles to get more capital funding for innovation space/engineer expansion on Myers.....basically it's been brewing between them and it blew up recently.
Absolutely nothing confirmed just what I heard from 2 unrelated mouses.
-
All pure speculation on my part, but it seems like Lovell is fixated on growth in terms of buildings and capital projects. Wonder if that led to some friction with the academic side.
While tuition is perfectly price insensitive due to blindly issued subsidized student loans, keep rocking those double-digit yoy increases and build baby build I guess. This gravy train can't run forever, so might as well get a whole new campus before entering another dry spell.
-
What I'm hearing is that Lovell is putting the Aurora fallout and lack of a replacement capital sponsor for the APRC as well as struggles to get more capital funding for innovation space/engineer expansion on Myers.....basically it's been brewing between them and it blew up recently.
Absolutely nothing confirmed just what I heard from 2 unrelated mouses.
If Lovell is pinning fundraising blame on the Provost... hooo boy.
-
If Lovell is pinning fundraising blame on the Provost... hooo boy.
Fundraising is a two part process. The administration, including the Provost, have to lay out a compelling vision for a building, program, endowment, etc. It is up to the advancement people to then that that vision and match it up with the philanthropic vision of potential donors.
So perhaps MU was having trouble with the former.
Myers leaving without having a new job lined up is interesting.
Most provosts have a back up academic appointment that includes tenure. So he is obviously still getting paid.
But yeah, it is exceedingly strange.
Lovell must not be an easy guy to work for. There has been a continuous revolving door among his VPs for awhile now.
-
Fundraising is a two part process. The administration, including the Provost, have to lay out a compelling vision for a building, program, endowment, etc. It is up to the advancement people to then that that vision and match it up with the philanthropic vision of potential donors.
So perhaps MU was having trouble with the former.
Most provosts have a back up academic appointment that includes tenure. So he is obviously still getting paid.
But yeah, it is exceedingly strange.
Lovell must not be an easy guy to work for. There has been a continuous revolving door among his VPs for awhile now.
I'm not certain about that for Myers but it's certainly been true for all his recent predecessors. But obviously he had buyouts in his contract so it doesn't matter much.
And truth be told, I'm not hearing anything.
-
Fundraising is a two part process. The administration, including the Provost, have to lay out a compelling vision for a building, program, endowment, etc. It is up to the advancement people to then that that vision and match it up with the philanthropic vision of potential donors.
So perhaps MU was having trouble with the former.
True, but in terms of the Aurora/APRC thing, I have a hard time believing Myers' involvement was so substantial that he could bear blame for it.
-
Fundraising is a two part process. The administration, including the Provost, have to lay out a compelling vision for a building, program, endowment, etc. It is up to the advancement people to then that that vision and match it up with the philanthropic vision of potential donors.
So perhaps MU was having trouble with the former.
Most provosts have a back up academic appointment that includes tenure. So he is obviously still getting paid.
But yeah, it is exceedingly strange.
Lovell must not be an easy guy to work for. There has been a continuous revolving door among his VPs for awhile now.
wonder if the EVP that left last week was Lovell's guy, and Lovell threw blame on Myers?
-
True, but in terms of the Aurora/APRC thing, I have a hard time believing Myers' involvement was so substantial that he could bear blame for it.
Could be. Remember that there is a new Advancement VP too so who know what internal politics are going on.
wonder if the EVP that left last week was Lovell's guy, and Lovell threw blame on Myers?
Another possibility.
Sounds like a mess.
-
What I'm hearing is that Lovell is putting the Aurora fallout and lack of a replacement capital sponsor for the APRC as well as struggles to get more capital funding for innovation space/engineer expansion on Myers.....basically it's been brewing between them and it blew up recently.
Absolutely nothing confirmed just what I heard from 2 unrelated mouses.
Wisconsin State Supreme Court here we come!
-
All the theories are possible. It's also possible that Lovell just determined that he wanted an upgrade at the provost position. At that high of a level, if you don't perform to expectations they will find somebody who does.
-
All the theories are possible. It's also possible that Lovell just determined that he wanted an upgrade at the provost position. At that high of a level, if you don't perform to expectations they will find somebody who does.
Don't disagree, but the suddeness/abruptness of the dismissal speaks to a break rather than a "we just want to get better" type of change.
-
Ziggy
You beat me to it. Hope Ma and P fills is on all the details.
If Ma and Pa can't get'r done wit all der inside resources, sure as chit The Pontiff will get to the bottom of dis, hey?
-
Gotta bee 'bout the new on campus bb arena brew haha, hey?
-
Gotta bee 'bout the new on campus bb arena brew haha, hey?
Or bringing back football!
-
True, but in terms of the Aurora/APRC thing, I have a hard time believing Myers' involvement was so substantial that he could bear blame for it.
That type of deal/agreement is the exact type of thing that the Provost is going to be the primary negotiator/deal maker on. If it fell through, it is highly likely Myers' had a major hand in it.
While tuition is perfectly price insensitive due to blindly issued subsidized student loans, keep rocking those double-digit yoy increases and build baby build I guess. This gravy train can't run forever, so might as well get a whole new campus before entering another dry spell.
Tuition prices are one of the biggest concerns of administrations. They are entirely separate from building new buildings.
One has to have donors to be able to fundraise. The fact of the matter is, donors do not want to donate to "maintenance funds" or "operating budgets", they'd rather donate to scholarships or new buildings. That means to cover increasing costs (salaries, benefits, operating budgets) they have to raise tuition considerably, which they can then offset by granting more aid/scholarships because donors will donate there. The $ amount is just a list price, it's like buying a mattress, its always on sale (30% haircut).
That all said, the number of reasons a provost would resign immediately are extremely rare, none are good.
-
A good way to look at it is that every $1 million of endowment generates about the same amount of revenue as a full pay student. So no matter how large the endowment and how successful the fundraising, tuition is going to always be the most important revenue source for Marquette.
-
That type of deal/agreement is the exact type of thing that the Provost is going to be the primary negotiator/deal maker on. If it fell through, it is highly likely Myers' had a major hand in it.
Tuition prices are one of the biggest concerns of administrations. They are entirely separate from building new buildings.
One has to have donors to be able to fundraise. The fact of the matter is, donors do not want to donate to "maintenance funds" or "operating budgets", they'd rather donate to scholarships or new buildings. That means to cover increasing costs (salaries, benefits, operating budgets) they have to raise tuition considerably, which they can then offset by granting more aid/scholarships because donors will donate there. The $ amount is just a list price, it's like buying a mattress, its always on sale (30% haircut).
That all said, the number of reasons a provost would resign immediately are extremely rare, none are good.
That which cannot go on forever, won't. At the compounding rate of tuition increases that's been observed over say, the last 13 years (since my freshman year), the "list price" is going to be so astronomical that no school can possibly have a chance of delivering commensurate value. So long as the feds are subsidizing the loans, the risk is exclusively borne by the borrower, not the school. Therefore, the schools have no incentive not to increase tuition to silly levels. They won't be the ones holding the bag.
And if that means the revenue increases are limited only by the institution not wanting to draw too much attention to their grift, that means the have every incentive in the world to increase their spending commensurately.
-
The feds will always be subsidizing loans. Unless they somehow agree to go back to more grants. Too many students (and parents) rely on those loans for education funding.
-
That which cannot go on forever, won't. At the compounding rate of tuition increases that's been observed over say, the last 13 years (since my freshman year), the "list price" is going to be so astronomical that no school can possibly have a chance of delivering commensurate value. So long as the feds are subsidizing the loans, the risk is exclusively borne by the borrower, not the school. Therefore, the schools have no incentive not to increase tuition to silly levels. They won't be the ones holding the bag.
And if that means the revenue increases are limited only by the institution not wanting to draw too much attention to their grift, that means the have every incentive in the world to increase their spending commensurately.
Believe me, Universities are extremely price conscious and are doing everything they can to remain both competitive in offering a high quality product, while trying to keep price down.
Universities have a certain threshold (% of revenue from tuition) that they refuse to go above. That has resulted in scaling back in many areas as they cannot raise tuition any further.
There is one thing that never goes into any calculations as to revenue targets (from tuition etc.) and pricing decisions; namely "feds subsidizing loans". It isn't even on the radar, essentially tuition increases are kept at the absolute minimum level to maintain a competitive product.
Most increases have come from two aspects, expensive upgrades to facilities (and repairs to existing facilities) and increased regulations that have led to bloated and highly compensated administrators. These aspects are synonymous with trends in education at all levels (and healthcare for that matter), where costs have also skyrocketed.
-
Believe me, Universities are extremely price conscious and are doing everything they can to remain both competitive in offering a high quality product, while trying to keep price down.
Universities have a certain threshold (% of revenue from tuition) that they refuse to go above. That has resulted in scaling back in many areas as they cannot raise tuition any further.
There is one thing that never goes into any calculations as to revenue targets (from tuition etc.) and pricing decisions; namely "feds subsidizing loans". It isn't even on the radar, essentially tuition increases are kept at the absolute minimum level to maintain a competitive product.
Most increases have come from two aspects, expensive upgrades to facilities (and repairs to existing facilities) and increased regulations that have led to bloated and highly compensated administrators. These aspects are synonymous with trends in education at all levels (and healthcare for that matter), where costs have also skyrocketed.
If the fact that tuition has roughly doubled in aprx 15 years and that reflects the "absolute minimum level" of increases, higher education is screwed. New parents would be looking at 100k/yr+ tuition bills in 18 years.
I think there's no incentive to keep tuition low, so it goes higher. So long as people are paying, why not increase it more? If I'm a bank and I give you a mortgage, but you default, I'm stuck bearing the associated loss. If I'm a school, and I make sure you get a student loan, and you don't pay it back, I've already been paid and it's someone else who gets stuck with the loss. Therefore, I have literally every incentive to charge as much as suckers will pay. Credit risk is borne by the feds and the borrower, not the school.
Eventually something will happen to provide a counterbalancing incentive, and then we'll see what the "absolute minimum level" of increases actually are.
-
Tuition is a lot more price sensitive than you are suggesting.
-
Apparently his Notre Dame pedigree didn't mesh with MU. He was also a Wisconsin graduate. Who does the hiring at MU? ;D
https://news.marquette.edu/news-releases/notre-dames-daniel-myers-named-marquettes-next-provost/