No more masters in Poli Sci. How will medical researchers find cut-rate data analysts if we do that?
Based on what they are cutting and what they say they want to expand, it looks like they've decided to go way down-market and compete with community colleges and the like.
In summation, everybody should go work for pharma.
This will be a boon to 21st century welders.
That's a pretty big enrollment drop.
The U here is doing the same kind of thing. Enrollment is way down, so they're dropping 52 faculty positions. The cuts don't actually track student choices, though, and seem to have more to do with admin preferences. I wonder if the SR cuts are closer to student choices, or if it's the same kind of thing but in a less transparent environment.
As I've said elsewhere, what St. Rose is doing will soon become the new normal. And then a bunch of tuition-driven, private schools like St. Rose will close their doors, and that will be the new normal. And then a bunch of satellite campuses of state university systems will close their doors, and that will be the new normal. And then we'll see what's next.
In the meantime, I feel horrible for Lemieux.
I feel horrible for Lemieux also, but I hope the satellite campus trend reserves itself before we see Penn State open an Oakland branch.
22 Penn State Campuses. Unless it's 24. That's a lot of campuses.
The ones I've driven past don't seem very nice, aesthetically.
I think 6 is correct. I get the sense that enrolment in universities and colleges has been steadily increasing for over a generation, leading to expectations that simply cannot be sustained. Sooner or later (i.e. now) the system has to saturate. Cuts in financial aid obviously aren't helping, but I think there's a deeper systemic problem that fixing the financial aid mess still wouldn't fix.
The cuts aren't just in financial aid. The state schools have, on a per student basis, massively less support from the state than they did even twenty years ago.
I've seen lots of people predicting a crash in enrollment (or, if they are commonwealth-y enrolment). But I still don't understand what is supposed to be the alternative for a young person or their parents. If there's one thing the recession showed it's that you don't want to be the guy without a degree in a recession. The income advantage for a college degree is still holding strong.
I hope the satellite campus trend reserves itself before we see Penn State open an Oakland branch.
Why do you did you hate Antioch West?
Regular-Oakland, not California-Oakland.
If you want to be truly enraged, here's a comment from Leiter's blog:
"As for the context of the decision: St. Rose spent an enormous amount of money in recent years expanding its physical campus, both through new construction and through the aggressive buy-out and renovation of buildings in the surrounding neighborhood. It would be reasonable to surmise--though I do not know the facts--that this rapid expansion contributed to the substantial financial strain that the college evidently faces."
I have no idea how accurate that is, but sounds like par for the course.
Physical plant expansion has been a huge cause of financial problems for some of the smaller state colleges here. On the one hand, it seems like a huge unforced error. On the other hand, if your enrollment is declining and you see schools with stable enrollment have nicer facilities, maybe you roll the dice.
15 makes me so goddamn angry.
Also, I know I live in a small, insular corner of the internet, in a fog of megalomania and slowly-encroaching insanity, but I'd never heard of the College of Saint Rose* before Lemieux, and just by public-intellecual name recognition he's got to be among their most prominent faculty. Which I guess doesn't matter if the college doesn't have a reason for existence anyway, but it still seems like a dumb-ass move to fire him specifically.
*Actually, I'd never heard of "Saint Rose." Apparently it's "Rose of Lima," a lay member of the Dominicans in Peru who is the patron saint of "people misunderstood or ridiculed for their piety" "gardners and florists" and "the Peruvian police force."
Huh, I had no idea enrollments were down elsewhere. Here the projections are for steady growth for at least the next ten years.
18.*: My patron! I never actually rubbed lime on my face so no one could find it attractive, but followed her example a little too well in similar ways. I've always been afraid to ask if the "against vanity" thing was my parents' motivation there, since it's always been a hangup and criticism my mom has had.
The ones I've driven past don't seem very nice, aesthetically.
Just following the example of the flagship campus, really.
Huh, I had no idea enrollments were down elsewhere. Here the projections are for steady growth for at least the next ten years.
It turns out that enrollments are down in places where the number of college-age people is down.
21: I really should go see that place someday. I've never gotten closer than Altoona. Which is really nice, unless you look at the buildings.
19: This is me breathing a sigh of relief (but being open to doing other things with my life.) Helps to be a cheap public institution.
The cuts don't actually track student choices, though, and seem to have more to do with admin preferences.
You don't say!
My patron!
As well that of my elementary school.
IHM ousted the Dominicans in a coup, though.
5 to 24.
That's UM, though. MSU enrollment is at a new record. Again.
That's UM, though. MSU enrollment is at a new record
And cost is the big driver? How big is the difference?
Yes, this is super scary for us academicians. I think 6 is right. Also, to 15, the facilities spending is a damned if you do (spending $), damned if you dont(crappy facilities don't attract new students) kind of thing. Nobody really knows how to increase enrollments, and everybody is just flailing around.
28 Cost is the same. MSU is Ag and Engineering, and a better place for science. High employment stats. UM has forestry, liberal arts, and better football. MSU actually has more male students than female -- 54/46. UM is 47/53.
Isn't this just what happens to capitalism in a fixed population world? Business models seem to all be dependent on constant growth. When the general population doesn't grow any more, it will actually have to shrink in some places, and businesses can't deal with that. I suspect we'll be seeing this sort of thing in plenty of other places besides academia.