(10-18-2017 04:06 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(10-18-2017 12:55 PM)PaulJ Wrote:  

(10-18-2017 10:35 AM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(10-18-2017 07:37 AM)PaulJ Wrote:  Whether it (state funding) impacts enrollment, rankings, student experience and retention are an issue,

It doesn't appear to be an issue on this campus. This remodel indicates "Pretty" (subjective) seems to be the only thing that can be grasped.

(10-18-2017 07:37 AM)PaulJ Wrote:  but if not Carlson that what other state funded renovations would you have preferred.

I've already described this.

The word "none" as an option seems an appropruate option.

We all love a pretty campus but long overdue time to show some responsibility. If limited PUBLIC funds cannot be put to a use that extends the primary mission, then "none," is the correct answer. That idea shouldn't be over anyone's head? Spending limited resources on cosmetics is not going to get the university out of this mess.

For a university in this shape, if public money cannot be directed in a way that primarily affects the mission, which isn't putting lipstick on a pig (Snyder, Potter, glass walls), then it shouldn't be requested or spent. My preferences have been stated several times in this thread and last. I'm not looking to change anyone's mind and as I mentioned, you're not capable of changing mine. Not sure why you were responding to me? You add no new information.

If the Admin can't think of a way for available money to be directed towards the things that matter, they ARE the problem. Cosmetic work just isn't and shouldn't even remotely be thought of as a priority use of public money.

Quality of support for research and instruction are the things and the only things that will bring results that matter. This multi-million dollar piece of pork glass wall does neither, certainly not with bang for the buck.

Unless as I've stated, this glass wall results in a run on the Foundation with people begging to donate money. Not holding out hope for that.




If all that was needed was some structural repair, then there's the use.

If UT has the opportunity like all other Ohio universities to apply for state capital funds (money that can only be used on campus capital improvements) they should do all they can to aggressively pursue such public funds to deal with priority deferred repairs and needed upgrades.

Agreed but they spent it on a glass wall instead. I wouldn't think this brain surgery, certainly not rocket science. Displaying the kind of thinking that imagine this glass wall facing a wall is a "repair" or "needed upgrade" is why the University has such a poor reputation. Glad that you're loyal but a university that has fallen so far might more need the kind of loyalty that is willing to call waste, "waste."

Are you trying to tell us they didn't have options? They were forced to build THIS particularly laughable "academic upgrade?" Of ALL the repairs and academic upgrades you are saying this money could be used for, THIS, a glass wall, was a priority?


When the quad was a parking lot, the university actually had a reputation that was respected. Academic reputation and viability has nothing to do with "pretty." All the pretty in the world, does not make a university credible. And this ain't even "pretty." It's a window to nowhere.

(10-18-2017 07:37 AM)PaulJ Wrote:  Whether it (state funding) impacts enrollment, rankings, student experience and retention are an issue,

(10-18-2017 07:37 AM)PaulJ Wrote:  This has nothing to do with increasing rankings or priorities or spending of public funds and how they are allocated,

I think this is what's called a "shake your head" moment. Can you pick a position and stick with it? The university has a rep of being run by people that think this way. The hope was, the new Pres would make a PRIORITY of changing that.

"Whether it (state funding) impacts enrollment, rankings, student experience and retention are an issue,"

Simply typo on my part should have read "Whether it (state funding) impacts enrollment, rankings, student experience and retention are NOT an issue,"

State capital funds are available to Ohio public institutions every two years, they all submit a list of priorities focusing on improvements, upgrades and evaluated on needs and costs NOT impacts on enrollment, rankings, student experience and retention. This funding source is competitive and intended to help universities and colleges deal with costs for building improvements that exceed operating budgets (state funds into operating budgets are in form of state subsidy which has been on downward decline for a decade, 2nd source of UT operating budget is tuition which at UT has been frozen 6 of last 10 years including last 2 yrs and next 2 years by the state) so funds for building improvements is tight. In last round of state capital budget allocation UT received I believe over $50 million covering dozens of projects on all campuses, opening one side of Carlson and improvements on 1st floor represent 3rd and final phase of that project. If you have other capital improvement projects in mind you are welcome to email them to President Gaber.