TOPS: To Cap, or Not to Cap?

Woodstein: When higher education officials went before the House Committee on Appropriations on Thursday, all of them -- including brand-new Commissioner of Higher Education Jim Purcell -- said they supported Gov. Jindal’s proposal to raise the cap on tuition hours.

It seems to me students should wonder who exactly these administrators are fighting for. Do students really want the faces of higher education saying students should pay more?

Bernward: For once, I think these administrators' logic is fairly solid.

In hard times, waste must be dealt with. The waste being targeted with this proposal is college students who apply for 18 hours of class during a semester only to drop down to the minimum when the going gets a little tough. This leaves empty seats in classrooms untapped productivity and wasted state dollars.

And because tuition is paid at the beginning of the semester, bumping the cap up will make students think twice before dropping out of a class they are paying for. The state wins though expedited — and cheaper — graduation rates. The University gets a little extra cash to make ends meet.

Woodward: Raising the tuition cap only prevents students from dropping classes once they’re already well into the semester. It seems to me the major impact of this proposal will come on the front end.

It seems obvious students will take fewer hours if they have to pay more for those hours. I understand the argument that taking more hours leads to faster graduation, which is a long-term cost saver, but I don’t know that students will see those long-term benefits.

For a lot of people, the money this proposal will cost them is a real incentive to take fewer hours. That leads to reduced profits and, more importantly, a lowering of the state’s already awful graduation rates.

Bernward: I think even you overstate the perceptiveness of Louisiana's best and brightest.

It would be nice to see exactly how much the increase will be, but it seems the governor thoughtfully neglected to file the legislation in time for the legislative committee's higher education inquiries.

But no matter how expensive it will be, I believe it will be largely ignored by students because of TOPS. As I understand, this proposal will be covered by TOPS, so I could see the majority of students simply ignoring the increase as their aid covers it.

Honestly, I see this increase as the lesser of two evils. Everybody always whines that higher education should be run like a business. This proposal is a step toward paying for what you actually get. Instead of other tuition increases which simply raise the rate for everyone.

Woodstein: While it’s TOPS’ers won’t see much hurt from this, the state will, because they’ll have to pay for those TOPS increases. So it seems like chalking up these increases to “self-generated revenues” that won’t cause the state to pay more seems dishonest.

But back to students: what happens to those that don’t have TOPS? They’re going to eat hundreds of dollars in costs a year. And many of those who get TOPS are some of the poorest students attempting college in the first place.

While it’s true that higher education should be as efficient as practical, to reduce higher education policy to the barest business math misses the purpose of why the state is paying for it in the first place: to better educate the citizens of the state. Any policy that cuts out that education ought to be thoroughly debated.

Bernward: It appears we will once again have to agree to disagree.

Tuition Increases: No Pain, No Gain?

Woodstein: In the discussions of Gov. Bobby Jindal’s budget, perhaps none are of greater interest to students than tuition and fee increases. While the budget leaves higher education funding at the same level it’s been, some of that money will come out of students’ pockets if the budget is approved.

Why aren’t students up in arms about this yet? If a pre-filed bill that would remove the tuition cap passes, students taking 18 hours will be paying 150% of the tuition they pay now. Do students not care? Should they? Surely students don’t want to pay more to go to school.

Bernwerd: Teachers cost money. Classrooms cost money. Higher education has facilities, faculty, and students expecting a certain pay or product from their affiliation with their school. So when faced with cuts to state appropriations, options for higher education are slim.

Either cut operations or find more capital … by raising tuition.

Unfortunately for students, it seems the Governor is not willing to raise the capital needed, so increases in tuition are the lesser of the evils. It should not peeve students too greatly, since the largest state school, LSU, is a bargain compared to similar institutions. Quality costs. This cost is clearly not going to come from the taxpayer, so why shouldn’t the direct beneficiaries of this quality pony up the funds?

Woodstein: I don’t know if we should simply assume the state isn’t going to pay for education. There is a growing contingent of legislators challenging Jindal and others that would like to see students paying more for higher education -- they call such maneuvers “taxes on students.”

While that may be a little dramatic, the state does have an interest in keeping funds flowing into higher ed. A better-educated populace is a more affluent populace -- and a more affluent populace pays more in taxes. If you keep increasing costs to students, you begin slowly edging out the number of students that can go to school -- that’s both a short-term loss for universities and a long-term loss for the state.

It’s an even bigger loss for students. It seems to me that, if government is supposed to help build society, there’s no better way for it do so than by providing as cheap an education as practical.

Bernwerd: In a perfect world, your argument would be absolute. But alas this is not a perfect world, it is Jindal’s world. And in Jindal’s world, the state has a massive budget deficit and one of the only pots of money to fix this deficit happens to be higher education. So let us for a moment dwell on reality and consider what is best for the current or soon-to-be college student.

Let us imagine the situation were there a moderate cut to the budgets of our already battered higher education institutions.

There will be blood.

Teachers will be slashed, leading to less course offerings, which will send students ranting on their social media about not getting that class they really needed to graduate. So what is at stake here is a prompt graduation.

I would imagine students would be happy to pay a few hundred extra each year for assurance. Assurance that they would receive a quality degree in a timely manner rather than having to pay for a few extra semesters and miss out on the gains that employment would bring them.

Woodstein: Permanently increasing tuition to fill a temporary budget gap seems like poor long-term planning to me -- especially for present and future students that won’t be able to afford college. But I doubt I’ll convince you either way, so for now let’s just wait and see if the Governor can club his tuition bills through the legislature.

THE 100 WORD BLITZ

We decided to mix things up this week. Instead of a debate, the two of us are going to be making the same arguments. But we know nobody likes to see two schmucks sitting around agreeing with each other, so we’re going to add an air of competition.

We’re going to take three basic topics and state our cases in 100 words or less. Go to our web poll on the right side of the site to vote on who made the argument the best.

WHY IS BOBBY JINDAL’S BUDGET TERRIBLE?

Bernward: It certainly seems the Governor has never heard the old saying about assumptions, because he makes plenty of them with the budget.

One example: Jindal's plan assumes $92 million from a rerouting on TOPS funding. A contentious move considering the funds will now come from a trust that generates cash for health care and K-12 education. A difficult move considering rerouting would require both legislative approval and a popular vote against entities with far reaching persuasive power.

It's dishonest, but politically savvy move by Jindal who will use the legislature as a scape-goat if his assumptions fail.

Woodstein: Saying the governor’s proposal is optimistic is pure understatement. More appropriate adjectives include, but are not limited to: quixotic, delusional, and irresponsible.

To assume the passage of a complicated, controversial legislative package that includes constitutional amendments is at best naïve hubris and at worst obvious political hostage-taking.

To assume it in a state budget is dangerous and only technically – barely – constitutional.

This budget leaves no room for error. If the legislature Jindal has so capriciously alienated challenges him at all, the budget will quickly be wreckage.

This is Jindal at his classic worst – arrogant, paternalistic and completely separated from reality.

WHY IS THE DEBATE OVER MERGING SUNO/ UNO STUPID?

Woodstein: I’ve got one number for you: 8 percent.

That’s not Mr. Bernward’s spelling test score; it’s SUNO’s graduation rate.

Say you had a toaster that worked only 8 percent of the time. Would you keep it?

No, you wouldn’t, especially if your grandfather only gave it to you because he wasn’t allowed a real one.

That is exactly what SUNO defenders want. SUNO exists only because blacks weren’t allowed into good schools back when Louisiana was, well, racist. Now they are, so it’s unfair to keep them in an obviously-failing institution for “historical value.”

Bernward: It's simple: Louisiana has 14 public, four-year colleges and universities with five separate governing boards.

Having 14 state funded entities only degrades the quality of the system as a whole.

Why would the state fund elite programs in the same field separated by a few hundred miles? It's not about black and white, it's about dollars and cents.

This is a move that should be considered state wide to build a system with a strong community college network to provide a foundation for moving on to institutions that compete academically and financially with the nation's elite.

ARE TUITION AND FEE INCREASES TAXES ON STUDENTS?

Bernward: This claim will be a handy piece of rhetoric in the election season, but it is ultimately misleading.

In an ideal world, the state would have a streamlined, fully-funded higher education system. In reality, the state is dysfunctional, and students will have to front the extra cost to receive anything nearing an elite education.

Indeed the state does benefit from a highly educated citizenry, but students are the primary recipients of the benefits of education. Simply put: quality is costly.

Woodstein: As much as students and Sen. Peterson would like to argue that tuition and fee increases are taxes on students, such accusations are more rhetoric than reality.

A tax is something that the citizens of the state pay for the common good. While it’s certainly true that a more educated workforce is better for the state in the long-run, that’s a corollary benefit of many individuals advancing individually.

Higher education is primarily better for those being educated. It is secondarily better for the citizens. So it’s only fair for students to pay more than others for the service.

Higher Education: Intelligent Crybabies?

Woodstein: So LSU Provost Jack Hamilton is out talking about how catastrophic budget cuts have been to the University. Frankly, I’m getting tired of it. Yes, cuts to LSU have happened, and, yes, they haven’t been easy. But I think LSU administrators are blowing these cuts out of proportion. Hamilton would sure like to think LSU is getting razed to the ground by these cuts, because it lets him do things he otherwise couldn’t -- like raise tuition and fees, trim professorial fat and gain independence from state bureaucracy -- but I’m not convinced.

Bernward: While I do understand how LSU’s song and dance routine is getting a little old, they do have numbers on their side. Can you begin to imagine how much $300 million is. This is how much has been cut from state education coffers in the past two years.

At LSU specifically the amputation has been closer to $45 million. We could talk about the various centers and programs shuttered, but lets focus on direct student influence. We always hear the phrase “greater efficiencies” thrown around when administrators talk about dealing with these cuts, but greater efficiencies are beginning to cut into the meat of the University. This translates into tangible losses of faculty and staff. In the faculty ranks alone, 140 positions have been slashed. These are spots that were previously fulfilling the University’s core mission: teach students. While this number is bad, it fails to quantify the true loss of some of the University’s most distinquished faculty to the budget crisis.

Woodstein: Yes, Mr. Bernwood, I can imagine what $45 million is. I can also imagine what more than $800 million means -- and that’s LSU’s entire budget for a year. $45 million over two years represents a pretty tiny percentage drop. LSU Admins always say they hate to talk about cuts in percentage terms; that’s convenient, considering LSU’s total budget has been cut by about a single percent.

And the 140 million faculty positions is terribly misleading. Those aren’t 140 fired professors; they’re 140 eliminated positions, almost all of which were vacant. While that still hurts, it’s hardly apocalyptic, because that number includes people who died, retired or left for greener pastures -- pastures that, by the way, must certainly seem all the greener given the doomsday rhetoric coming out of T. Boyd Hall.

Bernward: One percent is slightly misleading considering the divisions within LSU’s general budget. LSU is a massive operation encompassing much more than teaching enterprises. Consider there are nearly $200 million tied up in auxillary services. Using the entirety of the budget as a reference doesn’t measure the actual student impact budget cuts will have. And while the 140 faculty eliminated are not actual people, they are positions that would have otherwise been filled and would now be teaching students or contributing to LSUin some way. One should also consider LSU has had to shift and slice degree programs. Most notably LSU will no longer offer degree programs in various foreign languages. This further dilutes the quality of education students will receive.

Woodstein: I guess I’m not going to convince you that budget cuts haven’t been that bad so far. Can we at least agree that the priority now should be focusing on Gov. Jindal’s budget, which has huge implications for the future?

Bernward: Fair enough.

On Student Government Shenanigans

Bernward: Good evening, Mr. Woodstein.

For the sake of sporting debate I would like to shift our subject matter gears slightly.

We will stay with the topic of government, but move to student government. Specifically, to Louisiana State University's Student Government's interactions with the state government.

The Student Government at LSU has been increasingly involved with the budget crisis over the past year with letter writing campaigns and public information sessions, but its members face a funding issue. School and state rules prohibit SG from spending any of its alloted funds lobbying state government.

So, to get around this issue and get funding for their exploits, SG officials created a proxy group known as the Flagship Advocates. This group works as a normal student group, but it is comprised primarily of SG members and it speaks primarily using SG opinions. It is headed by SG Vice President Dani Borel.

So does it peeve you that they would seek to lobby with funds that Student Government isn't allowed to lobby with?

Woodstein: An interesting question, Mr. Bernward.

While I’ve certainly quibbled with SG’s “policies” in the past, I don’t know that I have a problem in this case.

It’s important to point out that most of the Advocates’ time is dedicated to a grass-roots movement. While Hudson and Borel run it, most of their work involves funneling student letters and student voices to the Capitol. And most of their costs are going to pay for postage, as I understand it.

If Hudson and Borel were using state money to buy advertising, that would be one thing. But their current use of the funds -- to directly convey students’ message to policymakers -- seems like they’re fulfilling their role exactly. It certainly doesn’t seem unethical.

Bernwood: So how does one define lobbying? The actions of these students would certainly be considered lobbying and it is being facilitated by state dollars.

I’m not saying all groups who receive state funds should be put under a microscope. It just doesn’t quite sit with me that a representative group like SG would take state money to lobby state government.

I understand it is not technically SG that is doing it so this sits perfectly within the rules, but it doesn’t quite jive with me.

I would think most students would disagree with SG President J Hudson’s rosy opinion of tuition increases so I doubt they would want to see any state or student funds used to lobby his opinions.

Woodstein: If students care enough about tuition getting raised to protest arcane SG maneuverings like this, those students should care enough to send letters. And J and Dani have repeatedly said they don’t censor letters -- they just send them.

So if the message legislators are getting from the Advocates’ letter-writing campaign is that students are okay with tuition increases -- and I’m not convinced legislators are -- that’s because those are the students that took the effort to send letters.

Bernwood: I’m sure money is spent in other ways. And I’m pretty sure nobody listens to SG anyways. But we can agree to disagree.

Martin -- Tuition Hikes Build Character.

LSU Chancellor Michael Martin apparently thinks Bobby Jindal is doing a heckuva job.

“We are very pleased with the bold proposals Governor Jindal offered this afternoon for higher education in Louisiana. These proposals are not short-term, quick fixes; they are thoughtful initiatives that will set Louisiana on a long-term path to a high-performing higher education system."

That's a pretty ringing endorsement.

Martin has never outright criticized Jindal, but he and other higher education officials have long opined that state leaders in general need to be more active in budget cuts. And he's often spoken in such a way that blasts Jindal's policies while painstakingly construed in a way

Now we see very little complaining from Martin now that Jindal has announced his higher education legislation agenda. But that's hardly surprising.

After all, he might as well have written the agenda himself.

Notice the end to Martin's statement:

“Finally, we thank Louisiana’s Flagship Coalition for the hard work they have done on behalf of LSU and all of higher education.”

Why would Martin give a shout-out to the Coalition in a statement ostensibly about Jindal's policies? It's simple -- Jindal's policies for the most part are the Coalition's policies. Which means they are also LSU's policies.

It's difficult to argue that Jindal's agenda isn't good for LSU as a institution.

The more difficult question is -- are these policies good for LSU students?

The mantra of Jindal's proposed legislation is "granting institutions more independence." While that frequently-used buzzword means cutting down on bureaucratic waste, it also means giving universities "independence" to raise tuition and fees.

Martin, for his part, isn't shy about saying increased tuition is better for students. He routinely argues that, if the University relied more on tuition than on state dollars, students would see a less volatile budget.

And let's be clear here -- raising tuition is good for Martin and the rest of LSU's administration. It takes a lot more effort to battle the state for funding than it does to simply raise tuition on students.

Increased tuition is also better for the state. If the state bears a smaller funding responsibility, it has more money to spend on other things probably tax cuts.).

But students (and their parents) need to look hard at these proposals and ask the question most relevant to them -- is increased tuition actually better for those that have to pay it?

That's a whole different column for a whole different day. But, unless tuition is increasing significantly more than state funding is decreasing, it seems unlikely that students will be getting much more value for their increased costs.

Arguments exist that tuition increases are beneficial to students in the long term. But it takes one hell of an argument to convince somebody paying more money is in their best interests, especially if there's no clear sign they're going to be getting a better product.

The Great TOPS Debate

Woodstein: Good evening, Mr. Bernwood.

As you’re no doubt aware, the Louisiana Budget Project recently recommended that TOPS requirements be toughened, making the program more merit-based. The Project argued that money should be going towards more need-based scholarships, because the state is “wasting money” on higher education for wealthier students.

It’s not a new complaint; the ever-cheery LSU System President John Lombardi has famously complained that “he sees too many nice cars out in the parking lot” for this many students to have the scholarship. Lombardi has often argued that merit-based scholarships would be more efficient for the state.

What’s your opinion on this? Should the state toughen the requirements and use the money it saves for more need-based scholarships? Are there too many rich kids driving their Cadillacs to school for their free ride?

Bernwood: What I think is not necessarily important here. What legislators see as the purpose of the TOPS program is important. The program in its current form is defined as a merit-based program. The purpose is said to be to keep the best and brightest Louisiana students going to school in the state.

But the requirements of the program make it seem more of a state-funded entitlement program than merit program.

To receive benefits from TOPS, a high school student must graduate with a 2.5 GPA — equivalent to a C average — and a 20 on the ACT. These are hardly tough standards, so the program not only benefits those select few who do excel academically, but also the much more abundant average student.

Woodstein: I’ll certainly admit that a 2.5 GPA and a 20 on the ACT aren’t the most stringent requirements for academic achievement. But at some point you have to try to determine just how stringent those requirements are.

Does the state benefit from only giving the highest-achieving students a chance at college? I wouldn’t say so. The state doesn’t just benefit from having its 4.0s and 33 ACT scores in the state -- it benefits from keeping its 3.0s and 25s. And, yes, it even benefits from keeping its its 20s and 2.5s in as well.

Bernwood: So if TOPS is a merit program, why not just award those who are meritorious? The state may benefit a bit from having less than brilliant students stay in Louisiana, but at what cost?

I’m not sure how much you read the news, Mr. Woodstein, but perhaps you have noticed Louisiana is in quite the monetary mire. You should also consider that tuition has increased for years on the trot and is set to increase sharply over the next six years.

In such a time, the question becomes how much does the Louisiana taxpayer want to pay for a mediocre student’s education? What should be the standard of merit when even the University’s state appropriations are decreasing?

What does one do if faced with a budget crisis? If you are Bobby Jindal, you cut things. This means having priorities and finding things or people that can survive without money.

According to this report, nearly 40 percent of students with TOPS have families that make more than $100,000 a year. Surely the average taxpayer would like to see a student who is both average academically and well-off financially fend for themselves when other vital state services are at risk.

Last year, the TOPS program cost the state a little more than $130 million. I understand that is but a fraction of the overall budget deficit, but in desperate times one must prioritize.

Woodstein: But it’s also important to remember that just because a student gets TOPS doesn’t mean they get to pick their university. LSU, for example requires a 3.0 and an ACT of 22. So students who barely qualify to get TOPS qualify to attend only the less-prestigious -- and less expensive Universities. They (theoretically) end up at the places they belong, so the state pays for the value of the student.

Additionally, it’s important to remember that TOPS is tiered; a student with a 20 doesn’t get the same rewards as a student who gets a 30. So TOPS has built in mechanisms to reward students for higher achievement.

Finally, we need to remember that keeping students in state for higher education generally means keeping better-educated workers in the state.

So I don’t think it’s fair to say TOPS is shoveling out cash to people who don’t deserve it. TOPS pays for the state’s young people to get an education -- that seems like a government investment that isn’t just charitable, it’s economically smart in the long-term.

Bernwood: It seems we will have to agree to disagree and let state legislators hash out this debate once again this spring.

The Salary Hate Machine

So Chad Rogers is at it again.

Rogers' claim here -- that higher education administrators are making too much despite continuing cuts to their institutions -- is hardly a new one.

Also, anytime you see this:

"Our informants in the Southwest Louisiana Tea Party contributed to this report!"

you should be wary.

Still, his other sources seem legit, although I haven't double-checked his numbers yet.

A few issues:

1.) He posts big numbers for Lombardi, Layzell, and others, but he only posts a historical salary comparison for Clausen. Why didn't he post any of the others? Are the trends not as damning? Or was he just too lazy?

2.) Did Rogers forget that Clausen isn't Commissioner of Higher Education anymore? In fact, did he forget that we don't have a commissioner of higher education at all right now because the legislature rejected the Regents' candidate for that position?

Did he forget why the legislature rejected that candidate? Oh yeah, it's because they thought he was going to get paid too much -- even though he was getting paid less than Clausen was.

Read that article. The legislature rejected Layzell's proposed salary at $319,000; that's more than $100,000 less than the pay package Rogers attributes to Clausen.

Not only is he only applying past trends to one administrator, he's applying those trends to a position that currently doesn't exist. And it doesn't exist exactly because the state is being fiscally conservative in paying for it.

Hardly the most convincing argument for rampant waste.

3.) Even if Rogers could prove that higher education officials were getting paid too much -- and he can't -- that's not anywhere near a substantive solution to higher ed's budget issues. LSU's budget alone has been cut by more than $43 million in the past two years -- knocking even a few hundred thousand off each of the supposedly offensive salaries wouldn't come near touching that.

It certainly doesn't come anywhere near the more than $300 million that higher education in general has been cut.

Again, Rogers isn't the only conservative guilty of trying to use administrator salaries as scapegoats for budget cuts. It's an argument we've heard before, over and over.

It's also an argument with little substance and even less real significance.

State of the Union

So that was a good one, as far as States of the Union go.

Whenever the President gives a speech like this, I always hear the same thing from people.

"That was just a bunch of fancy words. He didn't propose anything concrete."

They're right of course. Obama's speech, like every other SotU, was broad, eloquent and totally abstract.

What I fail to see is how this is a bad thing.

Think for a second -- would we really want to see a speech that gave concrete policy proposals?

The answer, of course, is no. Rhetoric is fun. Rhetoric is sexy.

Policy is boring.

While this may be a bit cynical, it's true. But even if that seems a little too Machiavellian for you, consider this: even if a President did somehow manage to make a speech with bullet points detailing how to fix the economy, how many of those points would Congress adopt?

The answer, of course, is we have no idea.

That's because a single man (or, more accurately, a single man and his legion of policy advisers and other assorted lackeys) can't and shouldn't make policy by himself. As painful as the sausage-factory that is Congress is sometimes, there's a reason why laws go through so much rigamarole before they hit the books.

These things need to be open from debate on all sides by all kinds of people. That includes Congressmen, our representatives (if they aren't too busy arguing), lobbyists, the people who work in or work for people who work in the industries (if they aren't too busy buying votes) and us (if we aren't too busy watching Jersey Shore.)

So a SotU isn't meant to be a policy laundry list. It's meant to help the President do what political scientists call agenda-setting.

Agenda-setting: n. The process by which political figures attempt to control what issues and what aspects of those issues are discussed in the court of public opinion through discussion in the news media.

(If you don't like my definition, try this scholar's.)

When the President talks about broad, sweeping issues, he's trying to use the huge podium this speech gives him to shepherd the public into talking about what issues he thinks are important.

Of course, this time around there's only one issue, and that's the economy, stupid. Democrats and Republicans and everybody who ever commented on politics ever agree that's the issue that's going to be the focus of public attention.

There, however, we get into the real agenda-setting battle. We know we need to fix the economy, but how do we do it?

Obama's answer in this speech is thus:

"Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation. But because it's not always profitable for companies to invest in basic research, throughout history our government has provided cutting-edge scientists and inventors with the support that they need."

Compare that to Paul Ryan's response to Obama's speech:

"Limited government and free enterprise have helped make America the greatest nation on earth."

For Obama, the way to fix the economy in the long-term -- to make the country competitive with other countries -- is to invest in green energy and education. For Ryan and the Republicans, it's cutting the deficit and letting the free enterprise system work it's magic.

That's the main debate we're going to see going forward. In part because of this speech, the larger agenda is set. Whose nitty-gritty agenda will end up being implemented, however, is yet to be seen.

State of the Union tonight

The State of the Union's tonight, ladies and gents.

We'll be watching it, of course. Expect a Breakdown sometime later in the evening.

The Breakdown: LSU Provost Jack Hamilton at the Press Club

Jack Hamilton, LSU's Provost spoke at the Press Club today.

Before The Rundown, a few words about this guy. As Provost, Hamilton is the boss of the school's academic side. Depending on who you ask, that makes him the University's #2, behind Chancellor Mike Martin.

That also means he's the guy closest to and with the most power over -- and the most intimate knowledge of -- budget cuts to the school's "academic core."

Without further ado, here's the Rundown:

-Hamilton's basic message is essentially the same one we've been hearing from LSU administrators for months: cuts have hurt LSU and will continue to hurt LSU in the future.

Oh, and don't forget: when LSU hurts, the state's economy hurts too.

-Although the message was the same, his presentation was new. He was flanked at the podium by 140 empty folding chairs -- Hamilton said these represented the 140 faculty he claims LSU has lost because of the cuts:

"Each of these chairs represents a victim, not of war or prison or celebrity death, but of our state’s budget woes. Count, and you’ll find 140 seats, representing the 140 faculty positions eliminated at LSU since the budget cuts began. That’s 140 faculty who could be teaching class, producing research,winning federal grants, and shaping students’ lives."

The 140 number is one Hamilton and other administrators have thrown around before, and it's a perhaps a little deceptive. 140 faculty haven't lost jobs at LSU -- most of the positions Hamilton's talking about are vacant positions that have gone unfilled.

Does that mean Hamilton's lying? No. Does that mean LSU's faculty isn't hurting from these cuts? No again -- several colleges and departments are hurting because they lack funds to fill vacant positions. And Hamilton's discussion of reductions to foreign language don't seem to be overstated.

But 140 empty chairs is perhaps a bit -- dramatic.

Still, it's a pretty effective visual, from a pure communication's standpoint.

-Hamilton's words about Governor Jindal are interesting:

"The Governor and other state leaders are doing serious work to save higher education in this state. The governor and his staff have been toiling in recent weeks to find creative solutions. We consider them our partners.

If I am here today for any reason, it is to help the governor make the case that LSU needs help

and is worth saving."

While Hamilton and his colleagues have rarely outright criticized Jindal's administration, they've seldom seemed so supportive of him either. We certainly didn't hear such praise last semester when Hamilton made similar speeches.

Is Hamilton's enthusiasm inspired by Jindal's quick, earnest support for the Flagship Coalition, the group of businessmen looking to protect LSU -- and only LSU -- from cuts? Maybe. In fact, probably.

-Hamilton also lays down down hard numbers for what kind of cuts LSU could sustain without real devastation. $20 million in cuts in "Direct Student Impact" is Hamilton's hypothetical cut-line.

But these aren't really hard numbers at all. What constitutes "Direct Student Impact" is hugely ambiguous -- and, I might add, a definition Hamilton controls.

How much of funding cut constitutes DSI? Only Hamilton (and his staff) knows. Which is kind of suspicious.

Additionally, a number that raises my eyebrows is this: Hamilton says a DSI cut of $20 million is the equivalent of cutting 5 or 6 of the University's 14 colleges.

LSU's total operating budget is well over $400 million; that's just discretionary spending. How does $20 million -- 1/20th of that -- amount to almost half the academic core?

There might be an answer. Of course, there also might not.

-3PO