(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.