I'll help everybody in this thread out:
http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/meth...model.html

That model explains why things happen where they happen, and the role that universities/governments play in shaping the benefits of those locations.

(04-08-2017 11:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 10:46 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  FWIW, AState is considering capping enrollment at around 15,000 or so for on-campus students because they would have to start building more housing and more classroom space. Because there is such difficulty getting state money for housing students the most recent housing project was a ground lease to a for-profit operator.

Also putting a lot of money into distance learning technology. Several bachelor degree programs are offered at the juco campuses through the Jonesboro campus to pick up people who don't want to move but it also encourages them to not take up space on campus.

Education needs to take a lesson from retailers. They are tired of paying for brick and mortar and large footage spaces that cost even more to heat and cool. A few pick up centers for warehoused merchandise sold online is so much more efficient. It's no different for classrooms.

In retailing they not only save on the physical space, but also in having to merchandise and price product. Schools in turn will save on the number of buildings and services, but they can even cut down on the number of professors on staff. There is no reason a qualified professor of high standing can't franchise his/her lectures to multiple schools for online classes.

The state of Georgia is experimenting with this for High School instruction.

Building more things that have to maintained and trying to group the students together isn't economical for the school or the students.

The big box retailer is going away. Now there are people who want to see and touch the product before they buy it, I think you will see the day when the typical Best Buy (or whatever replaces it) is the size of a Dollar General store.

Wal-Mart is toying with the idea of opening stores that are the size of Dollar General and using nearby supercenters as their primary warehouse.

There is value in campus based education, but only if you are person who is getting involved in clubs and campus groups. There are thousands of students who aren't and simply come on campus to attend a class and leave. They are no worse off doing distance learning.

(04-08-2017 10:06 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 07:35 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 06:09 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 12:07 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 10:48 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  How do state colleges get money to pays the bills, salaries etc? It is really very simple

1--Tuition and fees
2--State funds
3--Donors

You explained my argument very well when you said in-state tuition levels are too low to pay for them selves. (See some of my previous posts on this subject). So the state and donors must pay the rest. The more students the more the state must pay. The state may or may not give a pro-rata amount, but they give the school money to operate. Dollars are dollars.

So we agree, it is the height of idiocy to count out of state students in a scheme like this.

there are economies of scale and other factors involved as well

you only need one university president and the few VPs and Provost

you want X number of books and periodicals for your library for "stature" no matter the enrollment

as the flagship and land grant university of the state you are going to offer some particular degree programs no matter what......so you need a college dean and department chairmen and you need about 10+ faculty per department for a department to even be considered to be decent without regard to overall faculty quality

you have faculty from statutory land grant funding that you can have teach as well

you need particular labs for particular degree programs to be respectable or to even exist be it if you have 2 classes a day in that lab or 5 classes a day or 8 classes a day in that lab

you need particular research facilities for researchers to have respect for the programs and to attract those researchers so if you are going to have those labs you can have students in there helping to do the research

if you are a small state with a single flagship/land grant school that you want to offer a lot of diverse degree programs you are not going to meet the economical enrollment for many of those degree programs with just in state students

there is a point where tuition and the state subsidy for students meet that provides an economical use of facilities and administrative overhead all the way down to the people that just do data entry and day to day administrative duties

if they are going to have to pay $8,500 per in state student to have X degree program exist with Y number of in state students

well if they can enroll Z number of out of state students and get their tuition dollars and cut the total state spending down and or hold it the same while graduating more students then it is a net positive or a break even for them

There is some truth to what you say.... however, when that strike level has been reached it is folly to keep adding students that require expansion of those facilities. In the case of Arkansas that point was apparently reached some time ago.

That is why many colleges, especially private schools that do not have the tax payers to bail them out, have put a cap on enrollment numbers.

why would you feel that level has been reached with Arkansas a long time ago there is nothing that supports that

the University of Arkansas is not large for a public land grant/flagship university by any standards it is on the smaller side

all of their other public universities in the state with the exception of stAte are on the extreme smaller side of enrollment for a public university

you are also leaving out other factors as well

these students to not come to school broke with one cow from the family farm to milk at the university dairy to help pay for tuition they come with cars and cash

they need to get insurance, buy gas, buy cloths, buy food (even if on a meal plan many plans do not come close to covering all the food plus off campus students)

they work jobs and in Arkansas they work jobs in a very fast growing area that needs low wage employees for service sector jobs in the area and they pay taxes on those wages and the businesses they work for and support with their spending also pay taxes

so there are benefits to having them in state besides just going to the school directly

then there is the concept that graduates often stay and live and work after graduation in the area they graduated from or within a certain number of miles

for Arkansas, LSU, and the OK schools I am not sure that concept plays out like it does for other schools because the draw to return to Texas is strong for many students and because many of the graduates of those schools come to Texas for the major job centers anyway even if they are an in state student to start

but in the area of U Ark in particular it is fast growing with several national and international companies and they need graduates no matter how many employees they transfer in from other places and if The State of Arkansas is not going to fill the quota of top students that companies like Walmart, JB Hunt and Tyson need for their world head quarters well it is better to bring in out of state students, graduate them from U Ark and employ them at those companies than it is to hire those students in after they graduate from other universities out of state

plus it is much more difficult to build any type of technology of software or medical industries from the ground up when you are looking to do so by hiring in students from other places Vs your own in state graduates even if they were from out of state to start

Sematech and other companies did not come to Austin because Austin was a cool place to live (back when it was a cool place to live) and they could hire in people from other places to move there they came there because it was a cool place to live and because UT helped make it a cool place to live and because UT had the research and student/recent graduate infrastructure to support their future growth

once those industries got big in Austin and UT Austin had well surpassed their desired enrollment then they needed to start hiring in people from other places more and more

but Austin never would have build that industry from the ground up without UT already being a major research university with a ton of students and at the time (before the stupid 10% rule) a ton of top students from other places


every place that is smaller and trying to grow or grow their technology and high skill job sector especially those next to stronger places recruits out of state students heavily be it Louisiana/LSU, Nevada/UNLV, AU/ASU, AU/Bama. OU/OK State, WVU and on and on

government does a lot of stupid things, but they all can't be wrong on trying to do this especially with the success many of those places are having attracting better and better students and growing their economy in the areas of those universities at the expense of the places they recruit from

Texas might be one of the few places that benefits from those efforts because in addition to the jobs the cost of living is still low

I doubt many recent former California grads from AU/ASU or Nevada/UNLV are looking to move back to California if they have a similar paying job offer from close to where they graduated from Vs in the much higher cost of living California.....down the road as they have moved up the ladder maybe......as a recent graduate doubtful

but the state around Texas still need to make the investment if they ever want to expand their economy and compete and they are not going to do so by trying to hire in graduates from other places to build their industries

Sorry, but I do not have time to read all of that. Todge, from observing your posts on this board, I have come to believe you just like to take an opposing view and run with it. I have other things I would rather do than argue back and forth and try to convince you of anything. Frankly, I just don't care that much.

I originally posted my thoughts for readers on this board and you can take them or leave them.

(04-09-2017 11:19 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 10:06 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 07:35 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 06:09 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 12:07 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  there are economies of scale and other factors involved as well

you only need one university president and the few VPs and Provost

you want X number of books and periodicals for your library for "stature" no matter the enrollment

as the flagship and land grant university of the state you are going to offer some particular degree programs no matter what......so you need a college dean and department chairmen and you need about 10+ faculty per department for a department to even be considered to be decent without regard to overall faculty quality

you have faculty from statutory land grant funding that you can have teach as well

you need particular labs for particular degree programs to be respectable or to even exist be it if you have 2 classes a day in that lab or 5 classes a day or 8 classes a day in that lab

you need particular research facilities for researchers to have respect for the programs and to attract those researchers so if you are going to have those labs you can have students in there helping to do the research

if you are a small state with a single flagship/land grant school that you want to offer a lot of diverse degree programs you are not going to meet the economical enrollment for many of those degree programs with just in state students

there is a point where tuition and the state subsidy for students meet that provides an economical use of facilities and administrative overhead all the way down to the people that just do data entry and day to day administrative duties

if they are going to have to pay $8,500 per in state student to have X degree program exist with Y number of in state students

well if they can enroll Z number of out of state students and get their tuition dollars and cut the total state spending down and or hold it the same while graduating more students then it is a net positive or a break even for them

There is some truth to what you say.... however, when that strike level has been reached it is folly to keep adding students that require expansion of those facilities. In the case of Arkansas that point was apparently reached some time ago.

That is why many colleges, especially private schools that do not have the tax payers to bail them out, have put a cap on enrollment numbers.

why would you feel that level has been reached with Arkansas a long time ago there is nothing that supports that

the University of Arkansas is not large for a public land grant/flagship university by any standards it is on the smaller side

all of their other public universities in the state with the exception of stAte are on the extreme smaller side of enrollment for a public university

you are also leaving out other factors as well

these students to not come to school broke with one cow from the family farm to milk at the university dairy to help pay for tuition they come with cars and cash

they need to get insurance, buy gas, buy cloths, buy food (even if on a meal plan many plans do not come close to covering all the food plus off campus students)

they work jobs and in Arkansas they work jobs in a very fast growing area that needs low wage employees for service sector jobs in the area and they pay taxes on those wages and the businesses they work for and support with their spending also pay taxes

so there are benefits to having them in state besides just going to the school directly

then there is the concept that graduates often stay and live and work after graduation in the area they graduated from or within a certain number of miles

for Arkansas, LSU, and the OK schools I am not sure that concept plays out like it does for other schools because the draw to return to Texas is strong for many students and because many of the graduates of those schools come to Texas for the major job centers anyway even if they are an in state student to start

but in the area of U Ark in particular it is fast growing with several national and international companies and they need graduates no matter how many employees they transfer in from other places and if The State of Arkansas is not going to fill the quota of top students that companies like Walmart, JB Hunt and Tyson need for their world head quarters well it is better to bring in out of state students, graduate them from U Ark and employ them at those companies than it is to hire those students in after they graduate from other universities out of state

plus it is much more difficult to build any type of technology of software or medical industries from the ground up when you are looking to do so by hiring in students from other places Vs your own in state graduates even if they were from out of state to start

Sematech and other companies did not come to Austin because Austin was a cool place to live (back when it was a cool place to live) and they could hire in people from other places to move there they came there because it was a cool place to live and because UT helped make it a cool place to live and because UT had the research and student/recent graduate infrastructure to support their future growth

once those industries got big in Austin and UT Austin had well surpassed their desired enrollment then they needed to start hiring in people from other places more and more

but Austin never would have build that industry from the ground up without UT already being a major research university with a ton of students and at the time (before the stupid 10% rule) a ton of top students from other places


every place that is smaller and trying to grow or grow their technology and high skill job sector especially those next to stronger places recruits out of state students heavily be it Louisiana/LSU, Nevada/UNLV, AU/ASU, AU/Bama. OU/OK State, WVU and on and on

government does a lot of stupid things, but they all can't be wrong on trying to do this especially with the success many of those places are having attracting better and better students and growing their economy in the areas of those universities at the expense of the places they recruit from

Texas might be one of the few places that benefits from those efforts because in addition to the jobs the cost of living is still low

I doubt many recent former California grads from AU/ASU or Nevada/UNLV are looking to move back to California if they have a similar paying job offer from close to where they graduated from Vs in the much higher cost of living California.....down the road as they have moved up the ladder maybe......as a recent graduate doubtful

but the state around Texas still need to make the investment if they ever want to expand their economy and compete and they are not going to do so by trying to hire in graduates from other places to build their industries

Sorry, but I do not have time to read all of that. Todge, from observing your posts on this board, I have come to believe you just like to take an opposing view and run with it. I have other things I would rather do than argue back and forth and try to convince you of anything. Frankly, I just don't care that much.

I originally posted my thoughts for readers on this board and you can take them or leave them.

you made a weak point with nothing to support it

if you didn't care you would not post

it is OK to be wrong

(04-09-2017 05:47 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 11:19 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 10:06 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 07:35 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 06:09 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  There is some truth to what you say.... however, when that strike level has been reached it is folly to keep adding students that require expansion of those facilities. In the case of Arkansas that point was apparently reached some time ago.

That is why many colleges, especially private schools that do not have the tax payers to bail them out, have put a cap on enrollment numbers.

why would you feel that level has been reached with Arkansas a long time ago there is nothing that supports that

the University of Arkansas is not large for a public land grant/flagship university by any standards it is on the smaller side

all of their other public universities in the state with the exception of stAte are on the extreme smaller side of enrollment for a public university

you are also leaving out other factors as well

these students to not come to school broke with one cow from the family farm to milk at the university dairy to help pay for tuition they come with cars and cash

they need to get insurance, buy gas, buy cloths, buy food (even if on a meal plan many plans do not come close to covering all the food plus off campus students)

they work jobs and in Arkansas they work jobs in a very fast growing area that needs low wage employees for service sector jobs in the area and they pay taxes on those wages and the businesses they work for and support with their spending also pay taxes

so there are benefits to having them in state besides just going to the school directly

then there is the concept that graduates often stay and live and work after graduation in the area they graduated from or within a certain number of miles

for Arkansas, LSU, and the OK schools I am not sure that concept plays out like it does for other schools because the draw to return to Texas is strong for many students and because many of the graduates of those schools come to Texas for the major job centers anyway even if they are an in state student to start

but in the area of U Ark in particular it is fast growing with several national and international companies and they need graduates no matter how many employees they transfer in from other places and if The State of Arkansas is not going to fill the quota of top students that companies like Walmart, JB Hunt and Tyson need for their world head quarters well it is better to bring in out of state students, graduate them from U Ark and employ them at those companies than it is to hire those students in after they graduate from other universities out of state

plus it is much more difficult to build any type of technology of software or medical industries from the ground up when you are looking to do so by hiring in students from other places Vs your own in state graduates even if they were from out of state to start

Sematech and other companies did not come to Austin because Austin was a cool place to live (back when it was a cool place to live) and they could hire in people from other places to move there they came there because it was a cool place to live and because UT helped make it a cool place to live and because UT had the research and student/recent graduate infrastructure to support their future growth

once those industries got big in Austin and UT Austin had well surpassed their desired enrollment then they needed to start hiring in people from other places more and more

but Austin never would have build that industry from the ground up without UT already being a major research university with a ton of students and at the time (before the stupid 10% rule) a ton of top students from other places


every place that is smaller and trying to grow or grow their technology and high skill job sector especially those next to stronger places recruits out of state students heavily be it Louisiana/LSU, Nevada/UNLV, AU/ASU, AU/Bama. OU/OK State, WVU and on and on

government does a lot of stupid things, but they all can't be wrong on trying to do this especially with the success many of those places are having attracting better and better students and growing their economy in the areas of those universities at the expense of the places they recruit from

Texas might be one of the few places that benefits from those efforts because in addition to the jobs the cost of living is still low

I doubt many recent former California grads from AU/ASU or Nevada/UNLV are looking to move back to California if they have a similar paying job offer from close to where they graduated from Vs in the much higher cost of living California.....down the road as they have moved up the ladder maybe......as a recent graduate doubtful

but the state around Texas still need to make the investment if they ever want to expand their economy and compete and they are not going to do so by trying to hire in graduates from other places to build their industries

Sorry, but I do not have time to read all of that. Todge, from observing your posts on this board, I have come to believe you just like to take an opposing view and run with it. I have other things I would rather do than argue back and forth and try to convince you of anything. Frankly, I just don't care that much.

I originally posted my thoughts for readers on this board and you can take them or leave them.

you made a weak point with nothing to support it

if you didn't care you would not post

it is OK to be wrong

I said I did not care that much ........to go back and forth with you forever debating the issue and justifying to you that I am not wrong. You seem to enjoy that, I consider it a waste of time and inconsiderate to others on the board.

(04-09-2017 12:16 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  [quote='JRsec' pid='14249008' dateline='1491710614']
[quote='arkstfan' pid='14248974' dateline='1491709604']


Wal-Mart is toying with the idea of opening stores that are the size of Dollar General and using nearby supercenters as their primary warehouse.

Wal-Mart did toy with the idea of opening stores that were the size of Dollar General & using nearby supercenters as the primary warehouse, but it didn't work. I know this because I am a Wal-Mart associate. Those of us who worked in the supercenters didn't like it because we knew that even if we had a customer wanting something we had in the backroom, we couldn't get it for that person because the DG-sized Walmarts had first dibs. Wal-mart then tried to rectify the problem by using actual distribution centers & warehouses for the DG-sized Walmarts. Even though some of the DG sized Walmarts did well, Walmart shut down the experiment and gave all the DG sized Walmarts to DG, because a member of the Walton family, who owns Walmart, owns DG. Interestingly enough, the husband of that family member purchased Rams about this time, with intent purpose to move them to LA. I've always wondered if there was a connection between those two things.

So....if enrollment fell by 24% and attendance at Missouri home football games dropped by 21% does that mean that per capita their attendance was actually up 3%? Seriously the SEC would have shown a nice increase in attendance last year if not for Mizzou's dismal showing. Enrollment goes a long way in helping to explain this, especially when you also factor in their record.

(04-10-2017 04:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So....if enrollment fell by 24% and attendance at Missouri home football games dropped by 21% does that mean that per capita their attendance was actually up 3%? Seriously the SEC would have shown a nice increase in attendance last year if not for Mizzou's dismal showing. Enrollment goes a long way in helping to explain this, especially when you also factor in their record.

Just for clarity, that was freshman enrollment that dropped 24%.

(04-10-2017 04:25 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 04:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So....if enrollment fell by 24% and attendance at Missouri home football games dropped by 21% does that mean that per capita their attendance was actually up 3%? Seriously the SEC would have shown a nice increase in attendance last year if not for Mizzou's dismal showing. Enrollment goes a long way in helping to explain this, especially when you also factor in their record.

Just for clarity, that was freshman enrollment that dropped 24%.

That's okay, I was just having some fun! Seriously though the SEC might have been in line for a 2 % increase in attendance had it not been for Missouri's woeful year.

Crab cakes and football. That's what Missouri does!

no ... wait, sorry that's Maryland.


No one has any idea what Missouri does.

(04-08-2017 07:53 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  It is not 10,000 students. In round numbers, Missouri has 25k undergrads. Assuming the classes are relatively equal that would make the freshman class ~6,250. 24% of that would be 1,500 or 6%.

But it's usually not equal. Because a lot of students transfer in. So undergrad population tends to be top heavy.

(04-07-2017 03:55 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 02:54 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 02:30 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 02:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  As an Illini, far be it from me to say anything in the defense of Mizzou, but I believe that this is very temporary short-term response to an intensely political story in a particularly politically charged time in recent history. I wouldn't put too much into this as a long-term issue. There will be a point in the near future (probably within the next year or two) where the students applying to Mizzou will have little to no recollection of the recent political divisions at the school.

Ultimately, if Mizzou continues to have quality academic programs and competes aggressively on providing scholarships to students (as they have very clearly done over the past decade in drawing Chicago area students), then they are going to be just fine. Mizzou has turned itself into as much of an out-of-state draw for Chicago area kids as Big Ten schools like Indiana, Iowa and Wisconsin (which was not an easy task), so they have the demographic make-up to get through this bump.

Illinois politics make it where it's cheaper for Illinois residents to go to Missouri State than it is to Southern Illinois or Illinois State.

Back in 80's I knew a few people from Illinois who came to AState because it was cheaper to pay out-of-state tuition than pay in-state at SIU or IllSt.

Approximately half of the WVU student body is out-of-state. A great number of WVU students come from NY and NJ because it is well known that WVU "out-of-state" tuition is still considerably less than "in-state" rates for Rutgers and the SUNY system.

I thought that this did not sound correct since as I recall from when I was looking at schools SUNY is a relative steal. Just doing a simple search I tried looking between WVU and SUNY Buffalo (I used that SUNY because since it has FBS football and a larger school I figure it is the closest comparison).

Using Collegedata.com it appears that out of state tuition is 22,488 and if you include the other costs such as housing the NY resident would pay about 36,226.

SUNY Buffalo costs 6770 for a NY resident and if you count all the other costs it would cost you 22,062 for a NY resident as per the SUNY BUffalo website.

Now I may not have all the information but I am fairly sure that SUNY is cheaper for NY residents than it is to go to WV and it is not that close (unless WVU has a special scholarships for NY such as Kent State does). Unlike Illinois and NJ which I have heard do have really high tuition NY is fairly reasonable in that regard. One time when I was helping a friend look at school prices I found out that an Ohio resident back in 2004 could go to a NY school for cheaper than going to an Ohio public school which blew my mind.