(01-30-2015 12:23 AM)HyperDuke Wrote:  What's the best occupation to precede a career as a slimy politician?

Looks like most career politicians are attorneys, and I think insurance executives occupied the number 2 spot. And before any attorneys jump on me for that, just know that I'm an insurance executive.

(01-30-2015 08:53 AM)JMUSteeler Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 12:23 AM)HyperDuke Wrote:  What's the best occupation to precede a career as a slimy politician?

Looks like most career politicians are attorneys, and I think insurance executives occupied the number 2 spot. And before any attorneys jump on me for that, just know that I'm an insurance executive.

Hyper, you specifically said what is the best career prior to politics, this isn't the case, but I'd like to see a mixture. We need some business accounting and on the opposite end some marketing people, we need some teachers who understand working for the public, we need some career military people, the one's we need few of are those who've done nothing but politics. But most of all we need people who appreciate the opportunity to serve for a decade or so and then go back to what they were previously doing.

(01-29-2015 11:41 PM)HMK Wrote:  Cox states, "JMU relies on students to pick up 75% of the cost of its fairly expensive athletics program."

Scholarships are the biggest cost to the athletic departments.

State as cut Support to 12% of the cost of tuition.

Cutting support requires raising student fees.

It seems that the continuing loss of state support is the one biggest reason for the 60% rise in student fees.

Therefore if the state had continued to support higher education, student fees for athletics would not have risen the 60% Cox talks about.

Did some quick research to compare tuition to FTE cuts and corresponding AD budget growth. The FTE funding numbers are inflation adjusted back to $1999/2000 levels, so the actual $ impact is way greater than the numbers below.

2002 Tuition: $4,094 for in state
2002 FTE state Funding: $5,630/student
2014 Tuition $9,662
2013 FTE state Funding: $3,429

So, tuition has rise 136% since 2002. During that same time, FTE funding has dropped 65%. Keep in mind the tuition increase reflects inflation, while the FTE funding number does not. So the FTE funding drop is probably close to 92% inflation adjusted.

"According to Cox, James Madison's student fees went up by about 55 percent since 2005. The revenues, Cox said, haven't caught up."

Since 2005, JMU's athletic scholarship cost has gone from $3.85 million to $7.4 million, with no large increase in total scholarships offered. That is a 92.3% increase in under 10 years. Student fees in 2014 totaled $33,630,820.

So really, the FTE cuts are to blame more than anything else for the rapid increase. Draw your own conclusions, but don't think for ONE second that Cox is addressing the real issues. He is merely grandstanding and pointing at an easy target.

BTW, the JMU AD financials were just released. The Audited numbers show an AD with a $44 million budget.

http://www.jmu.edu/financeoffice/fin-sta...aa2014.pdf

(01-30-2015 08:38 AM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 06:56 AM)Potomac Wrote:  Just an fyi. assuming that this were to result in only a straight cut in the student fee and the athletic budget, this bill will be saving a JMU student a whopping $148 a year.
Damn, he's really making a difference in those student loan payments!

but it sounds so so so so good.

While $148 clearly is not a huge number, I believe the legislature is sending a message regarding the amounts that students should be forced to pay in order to subsidize college sports. If you could see the number of current students renting books instead of buying them, you might change your opinion regarding the significance of $148 time four years.

(01-30-2015 09:55 AM)Bogey Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 08:38 AM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 06:56 AM)Potomac Wrote:  Just an fyi. assuming that this were to result in only a straight cut in the student fee and the athletic budget, this bill will be saving a JMU student a whopping $148 a year.
Damn, he's really making a difference in those student loan payments!

but it sounds so so so so good.

While $148 clearly is not a huge number, I believe the legislature is sending a message regarding the amounts that students should be forced to pay in order to subsidize college sports. If you could see the number of current students renting books instead of buying them, you might change your opinion regarding the significance of $148 time four years.

I never had an option to rent books. Wish I had!

I forked over $500+ every semester, especially for CoB finance classes that changed editions/versions every year, so you couldn't buy used.

Effollet got rich off me.

(01-30-2015 09:55 AM)Bogey Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 08:38 AM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 06:56 AM)Potomac Wrote:  Just an fyi. assuming that this were to result in only a straight cut in the student fee and the athletic budget, this bill will be saving a JMU student a whopping $148 a year.
Damn, he's really making a difference in those student loan payments!

but it sounds so so so so good.

While $148 clearly is not a huge number, I believe the legislature is sending a message regarding the amounts that students should be forced to pay in order to subsidize college sports. If you could see the number of current students renting books instead of buying them, you might change your opinion regarding the significance of $148 time four years.

Most students don't know this and most would opt to have the $148 dollars instead of an athletic department if given the choice. This would likely be the case at most universities, not just JMU.

(01-30-2015 09:55 AM)Bogey Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 08:38 AM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 06:56 AM)Potomac Wrote:  Just an fyi. assuming that this were to result in only a straight cut in the student fee and the athletic budget, this bill will be saving a JMU student a whopping $148 a year.
Damn, he's really making a difference in those student loan payments!

but it sounds so so so so good.

While $148 clearly is not a huge number, I believe the legislature is sending a message regarding the amounts that students should be forced to pay in order to subsidize college sports. If you could see the number of current students renting books instead of buying them, you might change your opinion regarding the significance of $148 time four years.

I don't disagree with you about the amount of money students are required to pay in order to subsidize college athletics (which benefit not only the hundreds of student-athletes JMU has but indirectly impacts all areas of the university), but that argument could be used about multiple areas on campus.

Why did students have to fund the performing arts center that would have been funded by largely private donations at other universities? Why do students have to fund doubling the size of UREC? Why do students have to fund the ridiculously (and over the top) dining facilities on campus? Why do students have to fund the enormous landscaping costs I heard student-ambassadors talk about when I toured there as a high school student?

Again, not that I disagree with you but students are funding a lot of things that don't fall under academic curriculum and all are benefiting the greater good of JMU. I have no issue with JMU requiring high student fees as long as the over all cost of attendance is on par with other schools (which it is, if not lower), and the investment in athletics is improving things like student life, alumni/community engagement, and most of all the student-athletes that are active within the athletic program.

Cox's seat has run unopposed since 1995. He's a republican serving a chesterfield and colonial heights constituency that votes for anyone with a -R next to their name. 10 of 13 elections were unopposed dating back to 1989.

(01-30-2015 09:55 AM)Bogey Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 08:38 AM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 06:56 AM)Potomac Wrote:  Just an fyi. assuming that this were to result in only a straight cut in the student fee and the athletic budget, this bill will be saving a JMU student a whopping $148 a year.
Damn, he's really making a difference in those student loan payments!

but it sounds so so so so good.

While $148 clearly is not a huge number, I believe the legislature is sending a message regarding the amounts that students should be forced to pay in order to subsidize college sports. If you could see the number of current students renting books instead of buying them, you might change your opinion regarding the significance of $148 time four years.

Over a 10 year loan repayment plan, it's a principal difference of $4.93 a month. $5 isn't going to make a difference in a person's lifestyle.

(01-30-2015 08:44 AM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  honest question. Anyone on here have any knowledge of the inner workings of the way development is run? sounds like everybody knows someone who's never been contacted about giving ever since they left JMU. On the other hand there's those of us who give and still get contacted about giving too. So, what are some real world factors that account for people being left off the list after graduation? Is it bad contact information, the cost of mailings, poor information systems, not enough people to make the phone calls, etc. I mean, if the system is broke, and it seems that there is room for improvement, what needs to change?

I don't know the inner workings of JMU but a couple of things stand out in your question. First is the reason we all get multiple requests for donations is that since we donate already we have sort of self-identified ourselves as willing contributors. One pillar of getting donations is to go to the people already contributing and ask them to give more; more frequently and more $$$, and more through donating to new 'causes' or initiatives. (e.g. you donate to Duke Club how about also the Madison Fund?). It is the best way to really jump in numbers because people who are already giving are much more likely to move up to the next level than say a new donator from the outside.

However that doesn't solve the other big pillar of increasing donations which is EXPAND THE BASE. So this is where JMU is failing and failing miserably. As an example, you have 1000 solid donators all at the Silver level, while I have 3000 with a mix of people from Paw to Silver. Initially you might be getting more money but eventually I will surpass you, and do it many times over. Why? Because I have a large base which I can grow (per my earlier paragraph) AND I have also ‘recession proofed’ my donations. If we both see a 25% attrition due to personal finances or lack of interest, it is going to crush you numbers as you lose 250 strong contributors, for me I lose a higher number, 750 people, but likely again they are a mix so some of those hits aren’t as bad. Plus I can go to the other remaining people and ask them to up their contributions and more easily cover for the loss, even if only a small percentage is willing to make the jump, while you would need a big increase by most of your remaining group to cover for that loss.

Which gets to the final point; if JMU is waiting until people have graduated to start asking for donations they've already lost the battle for expanding the base. Sure they will get the dedicated people like those of us on the board, and the fairweather fans, but they won't get the life long contributors that they could have from a much larger percentage. Remember, once you're in you're hooked! So the key is getting as many people in up front as possible. There are many ways to do this and I am by no means an expert on that but if that is their job they can surely think of some ways.

The USC example was a good one. Another would be the kids love swag on their graduation gowns, how about give donors who sign up for $120 (in $10/mo credit card increments) the ability to wear a special pin or rope with their gown that they ‘buy’ at the bookstore by signing up to be a donor. Another would be the JMU job placement services, if a student wants to use it they agree to sign up to start donating at that $120 that kicks in once they are placed with a post graduate job. Once they’re in I’ve got ‘em!. The next year ask them to up it to $15, then $20, then $30, and explain how your donation is helping the next years grads get the same or better services. Make it a symbiotic relationship, you help us we’ll help you and the next generation of JMU alums.

And I just thought of those in the last few minutes in between meetings. Hopefully our people responsible for getting actual donations can get creative and think of simple ways to get more people to donate, relying on human nature which means people will do something if 1) it makes them look good 2) if it is 'popular' 3) if they feel shame if they don't.

If our donations staff can't grow the base by double in the next 3 years they should go work at McDonalds because they're worthless.

(01-30-2015 09:37 AM)JMU2004 Wrote:  

(01-29-2015 11:41 PM)HMK Wrote:  Cox states, "JMU relies on students to pick up 75% of the cost of its fairly expensive athletics program."

Scholarships are the biggest cost to the athletic departments.

State as cut Support to 12% of the cost of tuition.

Cutting support requires raising student fees.

It seems that the continuing loss of state support is the one biggest reason for the 60% rise in student fees.

Therefore if the state had continued to support higher education, student fees for athletics would not have risen the 60% Cox talks about.

Did some quick research to compare tuition to FTE cuts and corresponding AD budget growth. The FTE funding numbers are inflation adjusted back to $1999/2000 levels, so the actual $ impact is way greater than the numbers below.

2002 Tuition: $4,094 for in state
2002 FTE state Funding: $5,630/student
2014 Tuition $9,662
2013 FTE state Funding: $3,429

So, tuition has rise 136% since 2002. During that same time, FTE funding has dropped 65%. Keep in mind the tuition increase reflects inflation, while the FTE funding number does not. So the FTE funding drop is probably close to 92% inflation adjusted.

"According to Cox, James Madison's student fees went up by about 55 percent since 2005. The revenues, Cox said, haven't caught up."

Since 2005, JMU's athletic scholarship cost has gone from $3.85 million to $7.4 million, with no large increase in total scholarships offered. That is a 92.3% increase in under 10 years. Student fees in 2014 totaled $33,630,820.

So really, the FTE cuts are to blame more than anything else for the rapid increase. Draw your own conclusions, but don't think for ONE second that Cox is addressing the real issues. He is merely grandstanding and pointing at an easy target.

BTW, the JMU AD financials were just released. The Audited numbers show an AD with a $44 million budget.

http://www.jmu.edu/financeoffice/fin-sta...aa2014.pdf

(01-30-2015 10:02 AM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 09:55 AM)Bogey Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 08:38 AM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 06:56 AM)Potomac Wrote:  Just an fyi. assuming that this were to result in only a straight cut in the student fee and the athletic budget, this bill will be saving a JMU student a whopping $148 a year.
Damn, he's really making a difference in those student loan payments!

but it sounds so so so so good.

While $148 clearly is not a huge number, I believe the legislature is sending a message regarding the amounts that students should be forced to pay in order to subsidize college sports. If you could see the number of current students renting books instead of buying them, you might change your opinion regarding the significance of $148 time four years.

Most students don't know this and most would opt to have the $148 dollars instead of an athletic department if given the choice. This would likely be the case at most universities, not just JMU.

I disagree- completely. Given a choice, I believe that students would select to pay $148 to go to a school which offers college athletics as part of the experience. If they are amongst those who would prefer not to pay extra for college athletics then they have the option to attend a school that doesn't offer college athletics as part of the experience. For many, not all, the athletic programs and school spirit are part of the decision making process. If it's not important to a student and they don't want to pay, there are other options available to them.

Penn State for example - students have to purchase their football tickets, which is a lot more than $148...and they sell out, granted it is Penn State but maybe we lower student fees and add sell as ticket fees instead

(01-30-2015 10:18 AM)jmusuperfan Wrote:  Penn State for example - students have to purchase their football tickets, which is a lot more than $148...and they sell out, granted it is Penn State but maybe we lower student fees and add sell as ticket fees instead

for comparison from PSU "The 2014 student prices will be the same as last year: $218 for a season ticket (seven games)"

(01-30-2015 10:24 AM)jmusuperfan Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 10:18 AM)jmusuperfan Wrote:  Penn State for example - students have to purchase their football tickets, which is a lot more than $148...and they sell out, granted it is Penn State but maybe we lower student fees and add sell as ticket fees instead

for comparison from PSU "The 2014 student prices will be the same as last year: $218 for a season ticket (seven games)"

Does that $218 cover all sporting events or FB only. Depending on your answer, do the students then have to pay another fee for MBB, WBB, and BB? Are these fees optional?

Football only. optional yes.

(01-30-2015 10:02 AM)DolleyMadison Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 09:55 AM)Bogey Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 08:38 AM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 06:56 AM)Potomac Wrote:  Just an fyi. assuming that this were to result in only a straight cut in the student fee and the athletic budget, this bill will be saving a JMU student a whopping $148 a year.
Damn, he's really making a difference in those student loan payments!

but it sounds so so so so good.

While $148 clearly is not a huge number, I believe the legislature is sending a message regarding the amounts that students should be forced to pay in order to subsidize college sports. If you could see the number of current students renting books instead of buying them, you might change your opinion regarding the significance of $148 time four years.

I don't disagree with you about the amount of money students are required to pay in order to subsidize college athletics (which benefit not only the hundreds of student-athletes JMU has but indirectly impacts all areas of the university), but that argument could be used about multiple areas on campus.

Why did students have to fund the performing arts center that would have been funded by largely private donations at other universities? Why do students have to fund doubling the size of UREC? Why do students have to fund the ridiculously (and over the top) dining facilities on campus? Why do students have to fund the enormous landscaping costs I heard student-ambassadors talk about when I toured there as a high school student?

Again, not that I disagree with you but students are funding a lot of things that don't fall under academic curriculum and all are benefiting the greater good of JMU. I have no issue with JMU requiring high student fees as long as the over all cost of attendance is on par with other schools (which it is, if not lower), and the investment in athletics is improving things like student life, alumni/community engagement, and most of all the student-athletes that are active within the athletic program.

I completely agree with your point here.....if we are going to attack student fees let's really attack student fees. What about the other % of students fees that are not earmarked for athletics. Is it fair for the students that live off-campus and do not buy a 'full' meal-plan to have to have their student fees support dining facilities. Is it fair for students that don't use UREC facilities to support UREC.

I may be in a minority but I personally don't see any issue with the student fees at JMU and how JMU allocates those student fees when JMU is still a bargain (with a much smaller endowment) than UVA/W&M/VT. I saw screw the focus on student fees and focus instead on the cost of Tuition - Room& Board. If the politicians really want to make an impact instead of a headline that is where the focus should be. Also every state college and university should also take to the media to highlight the cuts in FTE $$$$ over the last 15-20 years from the state.

(01-30-2015 10:11 AM)JMaddy Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 08:44 AM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  honest question. Anyone on here have any knowledge of the inner workings of the way development is run? sounds like everybody knows someone who's never been contacted about giving ever since they left JMU. On the other hand there's those of us who give and still get contacted about giving too. So, what are some real world factors that account for people being left off the list after graduation? Is it bad contact information, the cost of mailings, poor information systems, not enough people to make the phone calls, etc. I mean, if the system is broke, and it seems that there is room for improvement, what needs to change?

I don't know the inner workings of JMU but a couple of things stand out in your question. First is the reason we all get multiple requests for donations is that since we donate already we have sort of self-identified ourselves as willing contributors. One pillar of getting donations is to go to the people already contributing and ask them to give more; more frequently and more $$$, and more through donating to new 'causes' or initiatives. (e.g. you donate to Duke Club how about also the Madison Fund?). It is the best way to really jump in numbers because people who are already giving are much more likely to move up to the next level than say a new donator from the outside.

However that doesn't solve the other big pillar of increasing donations which is EXPAND THE BASE. So this is where JMU is failing and failing miserably. As an example, you have 1000 solid donators all at the Silver level, while I have 3000 with a mix of people from Paw to Silver. Initially you might be getting more money but eventually I will surpass you, and do it many times over. Why? Because I have a large base which I can grow (per my earlier paragraph) AND I have also ‘recession proofed’ my donations. If we both see a 25% attrition due to personal finances or lack of interest, it is going to crush you numbers as you lose 250 strong contributors, for me I lose a higher number, 750 people, but likely again they are a mix so some of those hits aren’t as bad. Plus I can go to the other remaining people and ask them to up their contributions and more easily cover for the loss, even if only a small percentage is willing to make the jump, while you would need a big increase by most of your remaining group to cover for that loss.

Which gets to the final point; if JMU is waiting until people have graduated to start asking for donations they've already lost the battle for expanding the base. Sure they will get the dedicated people like those of us on the board, and the fairweather fans, but they won't get the life long contributors that they could have from a much larger percentage. Remember, once you're in you're hooked! So the key is getting as many people in up front as possible. There are many ways to do this and I am by no means an expert on that but if that is their job they can surely think of some ways.

The USC example was a good one. Another would be the kids love swag on their graduation gowns, how about give donors who sign up for $120 (in $10/mo credit card increments) the ability to wear a special pin or rope with their gown that they ‘buy’ at the bookstore by signing up to be a donor. Another would be the JMU job placement services, if a student wants to use it they agree to sign up to start donating at that $120 that kicks in once they are placed with a post graduate job. Once they’re in I’ve got ‘em!. The next year ask them to up it to $15, then $20, then $30, and explain how your donation is helping the next years grads get the same or better services. Make it a symbiotic relationship, you help us we’ll help you and the next generation of JMU alums.

And I just thought of those in the last few minutes in between meetings. Hopefully our people responsible for getting actual donations can get creative and think of simple ways to get more people to donate, relying on human nature which means people will do something if 1) it makes them look good 2) if it is 'popular' 3) if they feel shame if they don't.

If our donations staff can't grow the base by double in the next 3 years they should go work at McDonalds because they're worthless.

Ideas like these are great. JMU is trying right now to set the hook in students rather than alumni. The Student Alumni Association is trying to get students involved as donors during their time here. It's only like 2 years old so we'll see how effective it is over the next few years, but it's a step in the right direction.

It's especially hard for the Duke Club staff though. JMU is a fantastic place with a bunch of great selling points. No one would deny that. But advancement, especially on the athletics side, isn't about selling the present. It's about selling the future. We have no idea what the future holds for JMU athletics. The leadership has not communicated anything resembling a reasonable set of goals that the Duke Club staff can then relay to donors. It's hard to sell a future to people when the admin won't communicate a clear future, whether it be FBS or CAA.

(01-30-2015 10:16 AM)TXGiant Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 09:37 AM)JMU2004 Wrote:  

(01-29-2015 11:41 PM)HMK Wrote:  Cox states, "JMU relies on students to pick up 75% of the cost of its fairly expensive athletics program."

Scholarships are the biggest cost to the athletic departments.

State as cut Support to 12% of the cost of tuition.

Cutting support requires raising student fees.

It seems that the continuing loss of state support is the one biggest reason for the 60% rise in student fees.

Therefore if the state had continued to support higher education, student fees for athletics would not have risen the 60% Cox talks about.

Did some quick research to compare tuition to FTE cuts and corresponding AD budget growth. The FTE funding numbers are inflation adjusted back to $1999/2000 levels, so the actual $ impact is way greater than the numbers below.

2002 Tuition: $4,094 for in state
2002 FTE state Funding: $5,630/student
2014 Tuition $9,662
2013 FTE state Funding: $3,429

So, tuition has rise 136% since 2002. During that same time, FTE funding has dropped 65%. Keep in mind the tuition increase reflects inflation, while the FTE funding number does not. So the FTE funding drop is probably close to 92% inflation adjusted.

"According to Cox, James Madison's student fees went up by about 55 percent since 2005. The revenues, Cox said, haven't caught up."

Since 2005, JMU's athletic scholarship cost has gone from $3.85 million to $7.4 million, with no large increase in total scholarships offered. That is a 92.3% increase in under 10 years. Student fees in 2014 totaled $33,630,820.

So really, the FTE cuts are to blame more than anything else for the rapid increase. Draw your own conclusions, but don't think for ONE second that Cox is addressing the real issues. He is merely grandstanding and pointing at an easy target.

BTW, the JMU AD financials were just released. The Audited numbers show an AD with a $44 million budget.

http://www.jmu.edu/financeoffice/fin-sta...aa2014.pdf

(01-30-2015 10:02 AM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 09:55 AM)Bogey Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 08:38 AM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  

(01-30-2015 06:56 AM)Potomac Wrote:  Just an fyi. assuming that this were to result in only a straight cut in the student fee and the athletic budget, this bill will be saving a JMU student a whopping $148 a year.
Damn, he's really making a difference in those student loan payments!

but it sounds so so so so good.

While $148 clearly is not a huge number, I believe the legislature is sending a message regarding the amounts that students should be forced to pay in order to subsidize college sports. If you could see the number of current students renting books instead of buying them, you might change your opinion regarding the significance of $148 time four years.

Most students don't know this and most would opt to have the $148 dollars instead of an athletic department if given the choice. This would likely be the case at most universities, not just JMU.

I disagree- completely. Given a choice, I believe that students would select to pay $148 to go to a school which offers college athletics as part of the experience. If they are amongst those who would prefer not to pay extra for college athletics then they have the option to attend a school that doesn't offer college athletics as part of the experience. For many, not all, the athletic programs and school spirit are part of the decision making process. If it's not important to a student and they don't want to pay, there are other options available to them.

News flash- they're paying a lot more than $148 to support athletics. According to the Breeze article, JMU students are paying $1332 a year in student fees that go to athletics.
http://m.breezejmu.org/sports/article_ca...l?mode=jqm

Carry on...

Alright bdk, time for a math equation.

New law limits us to 70% fees as an Fcs school. Current percent is 78.81.
70/78.81=.888

Multiply .888x$1,332 current fees = $1,183.10.
$1332-1183.10= $148.90

At JMU the Student/Comprehensive fees for 2013-14 & 2014-15
2013-14 2014-15 $ Change
Virginia Student
Tuition & Fees $5,104 $5,406 $302
Comprehensive Fee $4,072 $4,256 $184
TOTAL COMMUTER COST $9,176 $9,662 $486
Room & Board $8,519 $8,828 $309
TOTAL ON-CAMPUS COST $17,695 $18,490 $795
Source - http://www.jmu.edu/news/2014/06/06-bov-summary.shtml

Of that here is how the comprehensive fee is broken out (2013-14):
Source - http://www.jmu.edu/ubo/rates/2013-14.shtml
(How we spend the comprehensive fee --- 30.3% go to Athletics or Approximately $1290 per student in 2014-15.