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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment