"Taxes are bad...the taxes...the finger thing means the taxes!"

Anywho, should I take this opportunity to note that at the same time as this post is happening, Assembly Hall is getting itself a fancy expensive new state-of-the-art scoreboard?

Yes, Balta, but the scoreboard will bring in much more than it costs in advertising revenue.

Advertisements? In Assembly Hall?!?

Booooo!

Josh,

I'll have to dig up the article again, but if I remember correctly, the scoreboard will cost $2 million and will bring in an estimated $250,000 anually. As ad costs rise and over a long period of time, yes, it'll be profitable. But right now, cutting funding for faculty while buying a scoreboard that'll take 5-8 years to pay back does not portray a very pretty picture.

That said, there is a counter argument to that sentiment, which is that the athletic and academic programs are separate enough such that the $2 million spent on the scoreboard wouldn't have ever made it into academic pockets.

Do the funds from advertising or other athletic revenue go back to the school's general fund, or just the athletic department's funds? The University of Missouri has been experiencing severe budgetary problems, while also building insanely expensive athletic facilities. Every time I've inquired about it the response is that the athletic department has "special funds."

My guess is that most of the athletic department's funds come through the reallocation of revenue obtained through the athletic teams. So, while the BB team is likely to generate a ton of money, it doesn't do the Univ. much good if it all goes right back to the athletic department. I really don't have any intimate knowledge of how public universities work these issues out, on the books, but it would be interesting to know.

Maybe faculty should just get sponsors like the race car drivers. Walt Disney brings you American History with [professor]. BioChem by Pfizer. Etc.

"Do the funds from advertising or other athletic revenue go back to the school's general fund, or just the athletic department's funds?"

Murray Sperber's Beer and Circus makes a very different argument, as does the minor, inconvenient fact that the IU Athletic Dept has run multi-million dollar deficit in recent years....

"Maybe faculty should just get sponsors like the race car drivers. Walt Disney brings you American History with [professor]. BioChem by Pfizer. Etc."

Er, are you unaware that this actually happens?

The athletic department can be faulted for countless foolish decisions and expenditures, but I'm not quick to say the new scoreboard is one of them. Not only will it bring in an estimated $250,000 per year in ad revenue, but it will be drastically cheaper in upkeep. The old scoreboard is like an old car - the parts are nearly nonexistant and therefore very expensive to replace. From a financial perspective, the new scoreboard makes sense.

The only legitimate argument against it, in my mind, is the one Zach alluded to - advertising in Assembly Hall??

If the numbers work as projected, I think the scoreboard deal is smart in the long term. Given how advertising-soaked the entire college athletics industry is, I just don't have the problem with bringing in ads here.

I do have question for Zach, though: your initial post expressed a strong desire to cut the size of the IU undergraduate body. I'm sympathetic to that goal, along with the goal of increasing the quality of the average student. But do you have any suggestions as to how to square the perennial budget circle, if IU were to do that? Do you (or anyone else here!) know of clear alternative sources of revenue and/or large chunks of the operating budget that can be easily cut?

(This is meant as a sincere question, and not in any way to detract from the force of the complaint in the initial post.)

" know of clear alternative sources of revenue and/or large chunks of the operating budget that can be easily cut?"

Get smart, out-of-state students to pay higher tuition rates?

Funding: Most speculation I've seen in this category revolves around more alumni support and getting businesses to invest in the school (which requires IU to produce useful graduates). In Indiana, when people think of alternative funding sources for public universities, they almost immediately think of Martin Jischke. As for out-of-State students, they already pay far more than out-of-State students at other Big 10 universities. If we are competing for smart students, this seems unwise.

Cutting: This is hard to approach, since the breakdown of the functional expenses offered by IU is not very detailed. Without numbers, though, one can think of a few options one could do without. Which would you rather have: immaculate landscaping or a shiney new chemistry professor? And then there are thorny decisions related to priorities: how important is IU's diversity program? Who contributes more to academics: teaching assistants or CUE?

Beyond this is a radical re-thinking about the IU system. How much of what is done on the separate campuses is wasteful duplication? Could a large portion of our undergraduate population be taught much more cheaply at regional campuses or community colleges (even for the first two years of college)? Is it wise to have the budget fragmented by school? President Herbert and the Trustees have effectively clapped their hands over their ears when such suggestions come up. Which brings up the necessary reforms to our administrative structure. I'd gladly trade a VP for a School of Music faculty member.

More immediately, the Star article points out two funding losses adding up to $8 million. Surely within a $2B budget, we could find some fat to trim.

"Get smart, out-of-state students to pay higher tuition rates?"

That works at Illinois-Urbana, where my brother and sister have absorbed (approximately) 15-20% tuition hikes each year since 2001. What are they going to do? Transfer to an Indiana school, lose a bunch of credits, and not have the programs they want? There is a captive aspect to out-of-state students, at least the ones already there.

...on the other hand, if you raise out-of-staters' tuition, the ones not at IU yet might not come, which would lower diversity, lower IU's national standing, and maybe lower the academic prowess of the average applicant. There are only so many smart kids in Indiana.

"There are only so many smart kids in Indiana."

Well, yes. But there are a lot of smart(er than the state school average) kids outside of Indiana, and a great many of them have parents who can afford the costs. And, what the hell, student loans are nondischargeable in bankruptcy, so either way IU makes money.

You don't have to raise out-of-staters' tuition (basic economics, indeed: sometimes you can maximize profits by cutting prices). All you have to do is get them in the door one way or another--but the best way to do that is by attracting better faculty to IUB, and if the legislature won't fund the university to allow it to remain competitive, they're being penny-wise.

"Who contributes more to academics: teaching assistants or CUE?"

Different budgets. RPS doesn't take money from the academic side. (Or, rather, if it does, it takes far less than, say, the defensive line coach, who ought to be fired anyway.) I'm not being partisan toward my former employers, but that's the cold hard fact.

If you want to talk about axing some departments (perhaps some with 'diaspora' or 'studies' in the titles) and redistributing the money to more development-lucrative departments, then that's a conversation I'm willing to have.

Every time I've inquired about it the response is that the athletic department has "special funds."

Undoubtedly, this is at least partly a reference to alumni donations, no? The kind where you "donate" 10 G's to get courtside season tickets?

The way the cost of tuition is outpacing inflation, it seems obvious that there must be some significant wasteful trends across the board in higher educational institutions. Unless all that extra money is funding new computer labs, state-of-the-art lecture halls, etc.

"it seems obvious that there must be some significant wasteful trends across the board in higher educational institutions. "

Er, do you want to model this?

I'm no economist. But if the price of something is going up, it's either a supply/demand issue, or the actual cost of the thing is increasing. From this discussion, it would appear that everyone believes the reason lies in the universities' cost structures. So either the universities' input costs are increasing faster than inflation, or they're using more input resources to get the same output--either increasing the quality of the output or just wasting resources.

It's a simplistic analysis, but it seems pretty sound to me.

You can be supremely efficient, and rising factor prices for inputs can still bring you down--especially in a market where there's a big difference between hiring good faculty, great faculty, and world-class faculty (with salary differences to match--we're about to enter the era of the seven-figured--salaried--superstar professor).

Different budgets. RPS doesn't take money from the academic side.

Hmm, I think non-fungibility may be an issue with the budget in general. Then again, a solvent school like the KSOB shouldn't necessarily subsidize a pauper school like SPEA.

Although I think the School of Music does deserve a nice subsidy as a campus institution, like the library or the strange heating system.

the minor, inconvenient fact that the IU Athletic Dept has run multi-million dollar deficit in recent years....

Athletic Departments are always a fun issue, as they typically fall into Auxillary Unit status, and get benifits in budgets mainly because of the fact that they are revenue generating. But they do tend to incur costs that other University departments do not pay out of pocket. An example here at the University of Illinois would be a new connection internet connection fee that they are charging per port. For general departments this is coming out of the general fund and not coming in the form of a budget reduction, but as the athletics dept. is a auxilary unit, it's out of pocket to the tune of something like $200,000 per year. That being said, if the Indiana Athletic Dept. is running a deficit and that is being covered from state funds, it may be time to make some changes.

I think a part (maybe a large part) of the budget problems can be attributed to less state funding in recent years. With the focus on more funding going toward Community Colleges & a general decline in funds from the State, a crisis is bound to occur.

Just FYI for those who don't work for the University. Staff salary increases in the past 2-3 years have dropped from 3-5% to 1-2%. Staff, not only Faculty, are feeling the pinch.

In response to Paul: I've never met a faculty member at any university anywhere that was worth a seven-figure salary. Even a high six-figure salary sounds ludicrous to me. Having tenure and the ability to make money through their other financial adventures seems like enough to me.

Are there any professors in the United States earning anywhere near $1M/yr? I'd be horrified if that's the case.