Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Thursday, Feb. 19, 2009 | 2 a.m.
Sun Topics
The higher education system, with more than 1,000 employees drawing six-figure salaries, has long been a favorite target for fiscal conservatives eager to rein in government spending.
This week Chancellor Jim Rogers responded to assertions that the system pays its workers too much by issuing a public memo noting the work and qualifications of each of 106 system employees who are paid more than $100,000 a year. The list includes deans, vice presidents and UNLV’s general counsel, among others.
“An examination of their qualifications, along with an analysis of the markets among the best colleges and universities in the United States, would indicate that these people are all an important part of Nevada’s culture that must not be impaired,” Rogers writes. “If these people leave Nevada, Nevada will have no system of higher education. Be careful with what you tamper.”
Rogers’ 134-page missive is unlikely to silence his critics, however.
After reviewing the memo, Andy Matthews, a spokesman for the Nevada Policy Research Institute, a free-market think tank critical of large government, wrote in an e-mail: “The majority of students leave (the Nevada System of Higher Education) with debt and disappointment, while these professionals earn salaries that put them in the top 10 percent of income earners nationwide. The Nevada System of Higher Education appears to have become a jobs program for professionals. We rob the poor to pay the Ph.D.”
Noting Nevada universities’ low graduation rates, Matthews wrote that instead of explaining why employees are qualified to earn six-figure salaries, Rogers should explain what those people are doing to improve the quality of higher education in Nevada.
Much of the chancellor’s memo focuses on workers’ qualifications, but it also includes information on their contributions to the higher education system. The entry about UNLV liberal arts Dean Chris Hudgins, for example, points out that Hudgins has raised more than $4 million in private funding to support his college.
•••
The “health sciences system,” a pet project of Nevada’s outspoken chancellor, is meant to revolutionize the way Nevada’s public colleges educate future health professionals and conduct health sciences research.
But with the new year, the initiative to expand health sciences programs and make them more productive has suffered a setback.
Gov. Jim Gibbons’ 2009-11 capital improvement program budget includes only a fraction of the money Rogers and company wanted for health sciences construction.
The governor’s plan included $31.2 million of the $36 million higher education officials requested for a new building in Reno, but left out $29.5 million they wanted for a new building in Las Vegas. The $4.8 million difference between the allocation for the Reno facility and the requested amount is due to the fact that construction will cost less than anticipated, said Marcia Turner, vice chancellor of operations for the health sciences system.
Rogers says with public colleges facing potentially massive budget cuts, fighting for funding for the Southern Nevada project is not the priority.
“We’re just trying to stay alive with the basic things that a university does — teach English, graduate people with a bachelor’s degree, that sort of thing ... We’ve got to attend to first things first,” Rogers said.
The $65.5 million for the Reno and Las Vegas health sciences buildings was originally part of $88.7 million lawmakers set aside in 2007 for constructing and renovating health sciences facilities.
To get the funding, higher education officials had to raise $38.7 million in nonstate money to match Nevada’s contribution.
But with the state in the throes of a severe financial crisis and the chancellor and his staff making little progress toward the $38.7 million goal, the state took the $65.5 million back.
Gibbons’ decision not to include the entire sum in his capital improvement plan was a surprise to higher education officials, who thought the state had withdrawn the funding only temporarily.
If the Chancellor is so convinced that the employees making over a $100,000 are qualified for their job, he should put up a website where the public can view their resumes against their current job position description.
The Chancellor should follow the new Administration in the White House's lead and have complete transparency.
I agree with Elizabeth. I would like to see this as public data since tax dollars are involved. Is there a regular post-tenure review for faculty? Are there faculty that receive 6 figures that have not brought in an external grant in the past 5 years? In my opinion, this is a concern if over $100k/year of tax payer money is used to pay these people incomes that are higher than 90% of workers in our country. (Not to mention retirement matching and benefits.)
Obama has been providing more transparency in government spending and I wish that university systems would do the same.
NPRI continues to be tone-deaf and illogical. I wonder when their spokesperson, Patrick Gibbons (aka commenter KDR81) will show up to provide more cunning insight?
"The majority of students leave (the Nevada System of Higher Education) with debt and disappointment, while these professionals earn salaries that put them in the top 10 percent of income earners nationwide."
Higher education employs nearly 15000 people in the state of Nevada, and 1328 make more than $100,000? Isn't that... less than 10% of the system earn salaries that put them in the top 10 percent of income earners?
And NPRI has a problem with that? Ok.
But when you look at the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce Fiscal Analysis and their comparative analysis of employee payrolls, you see that the average instructional higher education employee earns less than the national average, and the average non-instructional higher education employee makes only 80.1% of the national average payroll.
Actually, Elizabeth and nevadaappleslices, many of them have web pages where you can look, and their job expectations in many cases can be found on the websites of the schools where they work or the system website. I am not pretending that everything in life is completely transparent, but these people don't get to hide their salaries from the public. You will find that when you compare their responsibilities with those of people in the private sector in terms of what they are expected to do or who they are supervising, they are paid about what others are paid or less. Consider, for example, certain Chamber of Commerce executives.
How the guy that is on perm vacation earning over 100K a year waiting to be convicted on stealing from the state?
He already took one year's worth of paid vacation.
There is somebody else earning 100K doing his job.
He has been convicted before for stealing from another government entity?
Is Lord Rogers happy about that too?
And people wonder why people think that the government is full of waste.
Ksand,
NSHE has dismal graduation rates, for example only 41 percent of UNLV students graduate within 6 years. Of them, 2/3rds of minority students do not graduate in six years.
What are these professors doing to improve that? What are they doing to ensure that these students graduate with degrees and earn jobs that net them better incomes than they would have otherwise received having never attended college in the first place.
Until this is done it is easy to see that most students do leave UNLV and UNR with nothing but debt and disappointment.
Please read a few of our articles on the subject.
Graduation rates: http://npri.org/blog/a-majority-dont-gra...
NSHE Funding: http://npri.org/publications/underperfor...
More on funding: http://npri.org/blog/why-higher-educatio... and http://npri.org/publications/someones-se...
Is it below the national average? Yes. But NSHE has a graduation rate that is within range of the average graduation rate of the entire Cal State University system.
Furthermore, when you compare individual institutions, UNLV and Cal State Northridge (its closest Cal counterpart), UNLV's graduation rate is six percentage points higher when looking at 6-year graduation rates.
But you failed to address the substance of my argument. It's nice to see, though, that you've finally decloaked yourself.
So why is NPRI complaining that less than 10% of NSHE is earning within the top 10% of income earners? What does that have to do with anything?
And again, Jfnance32 plays judge, jury and executioner. Being accused does not make you guilty, jfnance32. I guess you don't believe in the criminal justice system and think anyone who is even accused of wrongdoing should be automatically fired. It's quite a world you live in.
"plays judge, jury and executioner. Being accused does not make you guilty"
Only in ksand99 and the government world can you get fired and only if you are convicted in a court of law!!!!!!
And boy, they wonder why people think that government has a ton of waste.
Just a FYI, you should not have to wait to be convicted in a court of law to be fired.
That would be a stupid and silly standard.
You are late to work in Ksand99's world.....opps can not fire you......we need to arrest you and get a jury of your peers to convict you first and then we can fire you.
Governments are full of waste as shown by keeping people on paid vacation where there is enough evidence to bring an indictment against a person who was also previously convicted of stealing from a state entity.
In regards to the high price to taxpayers of higher education (and most everything else) you get what you pay for. So the question for Nevadans is "What quality of education do you want available to yourselves and your neighbors?"
If libertarian-leaning conservatives thought of NSHE as an investment rather than a feeble charity, maybe Nevada universities would attract better students which would improve graduation rates and the quality of the Nevada labor market.
I see you are so well versed in the case, you don't even know his name.
But you're more than willing to pronounce him guilty and demand he be fired?
Yup, you are judge, jury and executioner.
No need for any justice system, we have jfnance32!
You may want to look up the case and read the details. Let me quote some details you have conviently left out:
"Gilbert acknowledged that he had CSN materials at his house, and that the employees may have helped him at times, but he denied he did anything wrong."
"He said that because CSN has no central maintenance facility, he frequently used his home as a base of operations for maintenance and repair. He was backed up by two former CSN presidents in that assertion."
"There was nowhere at the college you could do that," Gilbert said. "They didn't have the facilities."
"Gilbert said he sometimes took CSN materials and equipment to his house and sometimes used his own tools or equipment in his repair duties."
"He never, he said, kept CSN materials or equipment for his own use."
"Gilbert, who is paid $147,204 a year, described one instance in which he was asked to quickly repair risers on a portable stage. He said he brought portions home and made repairs in time for a scheduled event."
"Richard Carpenter, who was president of CSN from 2004 to 2007, including the time of that incident, recalled the incident similarly."
"Carpenter said, however, that he was unaware of Gilbert ever asking for reimbursement."
"Carpenter, who is now chancellor of the Lone Star College System in Texas, said he believes Gilbert is innocent, but did not declare it absolutely."
The man repaired CSN equipment at home. Two former Presidents acknowledge this, and you think he should be fired for it.
Ksand,
Your counterpoint missed the entire point of my argument. If all NSHE employees made over 6 figures and the vast majority of students graduated on time, and of those students who graduated the vast majority of students went on to earn real careers they otherwise could not have acquired then there would be no complaint from us. The salaries don't matter, results do.
The problem is, the spending and large salaries have not led to results.
As this article points out, http://npri.org/publications/underperfor... UNR has a funding level that is $300 higher than the University of Texas - a top tier research university with a 79 percent graduation rate.
People can generate some pretty creative defenses for NSHE, but when almost 2 out of every 3 minority student leaves with debt not a degree, NSHE is NOT doing its job.
The dismal graduation rates at Nevada's system of higher-ed are borderline criminal. We are literally taking from the poor to pay the PhD. Comparing NSHE to other poor performing colleges is also not a counterpoint.
Um quite frankly Patrick, it's not the professors' jobs to make sure students graduate. It's not even their job to make sure kids pass classes. See, that's the key difference between high school and college. When I taught at UNLV, I didn't coddle the kids and call their mommies when they weren't doing well. I certainly alerted them to their standing, but it is NOT my job or any other instructors'/professors' job to get the kids to pass.
We teach courses, make them passable, and make ourselves available to the student body for help. Until you can find deficiencies in those three areas, your argument is hot air.
To graduate in college the student must be actively involved in the direction of their education. They need to know what they need to do, and they need to take the proper classes and file the proper paperwork for such things as graduation.
The above named areas are administrative ones. These people are the councelors at the various colleges, and the admin people for the university as a whole.
Seriously what is your problem with professors/higher ed? Did you get stiffed on a GAship or something?
The flip side to the problem is just as bad. What if professors made all classes the students pass classes
Red,
If less than 50 percent of the students graduate that means NSHE is likely recruiting students THEY KNOW stand little chance of graduating college.
That means NSHE is knowingly taking money from students that WILL NOT graduate. This is borderline criminal -- we are literally running a statewide scam, promising students a better life when NSHE knows they will never graduate.
Not true, and further you blamed the professors. Why are they to blame for this? It sounds more like you have a problem with the administrators and the people who do admissions.
Red,
Did I blame the professors? I blamed NSHE: "we are literally running a statewide scam, promising students a better life when NSHE knows they will never graduate."
Do you feel comfortable working in a system that makes big promises knowing that the promises WILL NEVER come true to more than half the students (and 2/3rds of minority students)?
What if these high salaries are being paid by luring in low-achieving students who stand little to no chance of graduating?
Where is the social justice in taking from the poor to pay the top 10% of income earners nationwide?
Yep, check your earlier post. You asked, "what are the professors doing about this?"
And I don't work for them any more. Moved on to more lucrative and rewarding fields.
Firing someone and finding one quilty are two totally different things.
There is tons of evidence that he violated his duty and governmental polices. For instance, there are statements by many witnesses that state he used labor and material that came from the government for his own personal use. There is the fact that actual government material hangs off his house.
The county DA feels this evidence is truthful and believes that has enough of it to convicted the man.
That is enough to fire him. This proves it takes an act of God to fire a government worker.
He has already been proven guilty of thief of government material. He has served time in jail for that.
Why they hire such a person in a managerial position is another point that the government has no clue what it is doing.
Anyone with a basic knowledge of higher ed knows that the more selective an institution, the higher the graduation rate. Comparing Reno, a state University with lower admission guidelines with UT, a University with higher admission guidelines, is faulty.
"Do you feel comfortable working in a system that makes big promises knowing that the promises WILL NEVER come true to more than half the students (and 2/3rds of minority students)? What if these high salaries are being paid by luring in low-achieving students who stand little to no chance of graduating? Where is the social justice in taking from the poor to pay the top 10% of income earners nationwide?"
Here the old liberarian "personal responsibility" gets thrown right out the window and suddenly our University system is robbing people? First, your entire line of reasoning fails. "Makes big promises?" What promise, exactly? The promise being made: go to school, do well, get a degree, earn more.
It's disingenuous, at best, to expect high graduation rates when the state pays for most of students' in-state tuition. Couple that with the commuter nature of the campuses and a local industry that pays FAR better than what most students can expect out of college, and you have the recipe for your vaunted (and flawed) graduation rate statistic.
Higher education should be accessible to all, and given the enormous challenges our higher ed institutions face, a 41% graduation rate that is in-step with surrounding states is phenomenal.
"Firing someone and finding one quilty are two totally different things."
So he deserves to be fired even if he is NOT guilty? That's essentially what you are arguing.
"The county DA feels this evidence is truthful and believes that has enough of it to convicted the man."
Convicted? He hasn't even gone to trial yet.
"That is enough to fire him."
Really? Cause two former College Presidents have vouched for him, and for his explanation as to why the materials were at his home.
"He has already been proven guilty of thief of government material. He has served time in jail for that."
Which, in most cases, could be argued as inadmissible in court. But you're the legal genius here declaring him guilty, so you already knew that, right?
I think I'm gonna go accuse a couple of coworkers of wrongdoing so they will be immediately fired, just to satisfy jfNance32.
Kasandra,
So you're fine with the fact that NSHE recruits students they know won't succeed? You're cool with 2 out of every 3 African American failing out or quitting UNLV?
1) NSHE advertises higher education with a manipulated statistic which "demonstrates" that the average college grad earns considerably more.
2) The government gives subsidized loans and the state of Nevada provides large subsidies to reduce the cost of higher education -- this alters people's payoff matrix (how they make decisions).
The combination of high reward with low cost (without the knowledge of how likely they are to succeed or fail) causes a lot of students to enter college who will not be benefited by this. It is likely NSHE is knowingly doing this (though it is also likely they are doing this because they believe they can educate and improve these students lives, although empirical evidence suggests this isn't happening yet).
3) The graduation rates are based on full time student cohorts. Part time students DO NOT register in this computation.
4) If the private sector in Nevada does so well providing high paying jobs for high school grads why is there such a big push to get more students into college? Are we just that elitist here?
5) Why not raise admission requirements at the more expensive research universities. 3.0 high school GPA is not rigorous. Allow low-achieving students to start at the community college level where they can prove they can do (and are interested in) college coursework -- and prove it at a considerably lower cost.
Less than 50 percent graduation rates are criminal no matter how you try to spin it.
And if equal opportunity to education is the goal, then lets do some K-12 education reform.
How about some tuition scholarship programs for low-income children? Expand charter and empowerment schools?
Improve the quality of K-12 education.
Lowering or maintaining low admission rates for college only lets more students leave Nevada with debt and disappointment.
It takes two to tango Patrick. The simple fact is that they get admitted.
It is then ENTIRELY up to the student to meet the grade. They have helping tools, but it is not the perogative of the university to force the kids into it. Additionally, kids choose their own classes, their own schedules, and live with the consequences of those choices.
If kids want to sign up for school and screw around for a couple of semesters, that's entirely up to them.
You seem so uptight about these kids going to school and failing, but you don't ask the underlying circumstances behind it.
Are these kids partying too much?
Is sports impacting their scholastics somehow?
And most importantly, especially in these trying times, is the cost of school forcing some to drop out? Especially considering the hidden cost of books.
Lastly, improving the GPA requirements were already debated at UNLV. I think the student body shouted the idea down, but my memory is somewhat foggy on that one.
No matter what, the bottom line is that there is not enough money for everything that we want. I feel like fellow students are pawns. We are protesting that (1) we don't want a tuition increase and (2) none of the budget should be cut. Reality - cuts are coming. Do we want to fight for (1) no tuition increase or (2) don't cut 6 figure salaries of professors and administrators? Personally, I hope that people wake up and say let's cut things that would cost us extra tuition money.
Kasandra? That's really clever, Patrick. I'm sure NPRI loves the fact that a tiny bit of your salary goes to wasting your time insulting me. I'll send Sheldon Adelson a thank you note. Meanwhile, grow up.
The basis of your argument is that less people should be able to go to college, because the graduation rate is low, which is not the students' fault, but the institution's. You're blaming the institution for the failure of the student.
I would LOVE to see some data that suggests that students who have attended college earn LESS than those that do not thus proving your "manipulated statistic" line of BS.
"If the private sector in Nevada does so well providing high paying jobs for high school grads why is there such a big push to get more students into college? Are we just that elitist here?"
First the premise that more education = elitism is false. But you knew that. Second, there are plenty of careers that require college degrees... like elementary school teachers.
Okay, I've read enough posts today, I can't pass up commenting. First of all, Mr. Gibbons, for my own curiosity, are you related to the governor?
KSand and Red, you are letting Nance and Gibbons frame the debate in their terms. The real issue isn't whether professors at research universities should earn more than $100k per year or even what percentage should earn that much. The issue isn't whether professors or NSHE are responsible for gradation rates or admission standards. Those are all giant red herrings pulling you off the scent.
The issue is taxation versus quality of life for the majority. The issue is does a society have an oboligation to tax its citizens to fund education of a reasonable quality. You can measure that quality by the number of graduates if you like, you can measure it by the CV of the professors. Or you can measure it by the quality of the admission standards. The problem is that when you fund education at the levels funding by Nevada low, you get what you pay for, which is at best mediocrity in most areas. This state funds both K-12 and Higher Ed lower than the fast majority of the states regardless of whether you measure funding on a per capita basis, on a percentage of GDP basis, on a per student basis or on a total dollar basis. The only standard on which fund above average is on a percent of General Fund basis.
But to measure anything on that basis is nonsense. First of all, our Higher Ed gets zero municipal/county support while in most states they call them 'community' colleges for a reason. Additionally, our general fund is so low, the California deficit is greater on a per capita basis then our entire state budget. That deficit in California was projected at $1400 per capita while our entire General Fund is less than $1,000 per capita. The fact that Higher Ed has only a 2% higher share of General Fund than average actually demonstrates how low Nevada funds higher education.
No, the issue isn't professors' salaries or admission standards, it's taxation. Stop arguing with these people about the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin and tell Buckley, Raggio et al that we need more revenue to have a state worth living in.
Hmmmmm.....he has served time for stealing.
People had made sworn statement saying he stole material and labor for personal gain.
He actually has material on his house and other buildings on his land that came from the government supply.
Should he be fired??????
Nope..........not in lib government world.
Instead...he has collect over a years worth of paid vacation.
Government work....you gotta love it.
No waste there!!!!!!
ksand99 must be a government worker.
Ksand, if you want to justify the need for college educated professionals, tell Mr. Gibbons that Nevada has insufficient infrastructure for and can't afford to train its doctors in over half of the board certified specialties, that we don't have the educational infrastructure to train even 50% of the state's need for nurses and our hospitals have to pay outrageous salaries, signing bonus and moving expenses to get foreign trained nurses to move here. (I wonder if American trained nurses know what kind of education their kids would get if they moved here.)
We don't train enough accountant's, lawyer, computer scientists, engineers, or K-12 teachers to handle our growing population. I guess we just have to hope we can keep attracting professionals who think climate and gaming is a good reason to move here so we can at least have some new professionasl.
To bad the isolationist/libertarians want us to go back to being a rural based state with a population of under 700,000 so they can recede into the past. But the bad news is, if we dn't fund education and other needs with new revenue sources they might get their way. (HMMMMM, maybe their crazy like a fox?)
Here is my opinion. UNLV is not a top university. We are not Harvard, nor do we expect to be. We serve people from diverse backgrounds that want education to improve their long term quality of life through better job opportunities. We also want an education that we can afford.
Now here is my opinion. UNLV should be a teaching school with lower paid professors. Students generally do not care about the research. We want to learn, graduate, and get a job. In my opinion, our professors are generally not leaders in their fields, so why pay for their research services when we only want teaching from them? As far as I know, a minority of them bring in large external research grants that generate more overhead than their salary. Let those professors transfer to University of Nevada, Reno (the research university) since they pay their salary in overhead alone. The ones that stay at UNLV, convert to teaching professors that teach more than one or two classes a semester because they no longer work more than half of their time on "research".
In my opinion, UNLV should be converted to a teaching school and some professors should drop the snooty, "I do research and am too overpaid to help you students with your dumb questions".
Mr. Nance, would you mind answering a question for me. Do you know how much tax you would pay if Chancellor Rogers' tax proposal were enacted? Have you seen any of the studies on the impact such a tax would have on empployment in this state?
Conversely, if we don't enact some form of new revenue and K-12 has to reduce its teaching staff are youi good with the fact, regardless of the quality of instruction currenlty, the quality of teachers who would be willing to stay and teach would plummet? Are you okay with having no orthopedic surgeons, no OB-Gyn's, ICU's with one nurse per 7 patients when the AMA thinks 1 per 5 is not enough?
Are you comfortable that most of our high school graduates with over 3.0 leave the state for college and never return? Are you sanguine with the fact that we can't staff our police departments because though you think "we pay government employee's too much", we actually pay less than even Mississippi does.
The truth is that the biggest source of proposed revenue is a 4% tax on the profits of companies to the extent their profits exceed $1,000,000 per year. No tax on Mom and Pop business, no incrase in sales tax paid by consumers, no nothing that would hurt working families. But Herbst would pay a tax of $1,000,000 and so he's very willing to spend a lot of money to elect 'conservatives' who will save him a $1,000,000 per year. And dont tell me he'll pass the price on to consumers because Herbst stations already charge more than most other stations and consumer have the choice driving one more block to save that extra penny or two. (BTW, one penney per gallon is less than $10 per year for the average consumer).
Stop being so short sighted and anti "liberal" because it has nothing to do with liberal vs conservative. It has to do with aavwealthy anti tax constituency railing about tax and spend liberals so that they can keep all the profits our state generously permits them to earn without contributing the needs of the state they earn their profits in.
nevadaappleslices, interesting theory but the data proves you wrong. Firstly, when research dollars come in, the institution gets and 'override' call "Indirect Cost recovery" which can run as high as 80% of the funds directed to fund the research. The reason why school want research is becuase it provides significant cash flow on a real time basis. It also generates contributions from wealthy donors which allow schools to build their endowment base and gradually free their need for large public funding. A case in point would be Univ of Michigan which gets so much research revenue and has developed enough of an endowment that only 2% of its funding is state appropriation. It actually wants to become a 'private' school and give up that 2% so it can be free of the state reporting requirements.
As to student preferences. The only reason why "teaching" schools have reasonable enrollment is becuase they generally have lower tuiton. For example, the Cal STate univeristy System scjpp; which are more teaching focused that the UC system school charges substantially less than UNLV or and a fraction of UC. My son graduate from Cal State Northridge a year ago and his tuition was less than $2,000 per year. This tuition at a community college had been well under $1,0000 per year (but then those school are funded at more than double what we fund our equivalent schools).
If we want develope financially sound and long term viable higher ed schools, we have to enable them to build the way schools like ASU, U of A and other state universities in the region have grown, and that takes time and money.
Hey Nance, you got awfully quiet?
"First of all, Mr. Gibbons, for my own curiosity, are you related to the governor?"
He is a paid spokesperson for the Nevada Policy Research Institute (http://www.npri.org/about/npri-staff#pat...) which is funded largely by right-wing zealots like Sheldon Adelson.
He previously posted here under the username "KDR81," and after outed as being a paid shill for an organization he was publicizing, has now registed his actual name as his username. (Which, coincidentally, is a violation of the Sun's comment policy on multiple identities, but I'll let them sort that out.)
As for my employment, jfNance32, we have been over this: I do some consulting and freelance IT work. Same as you, apparently. I can't help that you have a poor memory.
hss46 - I agree that research money is a good thing, but there just is not enough of it at UNLV. If the top 1000 people in NHSE make over six figures, just those employees cost the system over $100,000,000. The past and current research dollars do not cover those salaries, only slightly subsidize them. There are more than those 1000 employees, so the difference is even larger. I suspect that UNLV could double teaching loads, cut the number of faculty in half, and come out ahead of where they are now. I know a lot of faculty that say that they are 50% research and spend a lot of time on "research", but they haven't had a research grant in several years. The "50% research" thing seems like we are paying for them to do something fun that doesn't benefit our financial situation. These are just my opinions........
"Do you know how much tax you would pay if Chancellor Rogers' tax proposal were enacted?"
He has a whole list of tax proposals.
He wants over a billion in new taxes on businesses.
Since very few companies are making a profit in this state at this time. Most of those taxes will come from consumers, like me and my fellow citizens many of whom are either laidoff or have had their salary and benefits reduced.
"Have you seen any of the studies on the impact such a tax would have on empployment in this state?"
No I have not.
In all, he has proposed $1.7 billion in new taxes.
Moving that much money out the private economy into the government will increase our already high high unemployement rate.
Surely, government workers are not some special class who want their platinum benefits and their COLA's and step raises protected while at the same time placing the everyday Joe and Jane on the chopping block of more layoffs, more salary and benefits that would occur with higher taxes.
Higher taxes could also have the effect of making the recession in Nevada be longer and deeper and that will reduce the net result of higher taxes.
I am not saying no to higher taxes. It can not be a $1 billion or higher.
That means that the government needs to make 100's of millions in cuts.
K-12 has the biggest share of state budget. Gibbons is proposing a 2-3% decrease for that budget which includes the 6% salary decrease.
Social services is next. Gibbons is proposing a slight increase for that area.
Higher ed is next.
Public safety and prison's is next. Gibbons budget has a 12% reduction for that budget.
So as you can see Higher Ed has a big target on its back because it has a less importance than Social Services or K-12. Public Safety and Prisons are getting hit hard already.
The other big target is the money that gets sent down to the counties.
As a state, we are INVESTING IN STUDENTS. This investment includes salaries for professors and staff. If the retention rate sucks, who should be responsible for improving the situation? I think that it is obvious that part of the professors jobs are to make sure that the investments in students are not lost. Wake up, beyond it being your moral duty, it is your job to help students to succeed!
I am with jfinance - people need a reality check that there is only so much money and there are more serious concerns in the state than higher ed.
I find it strange that so many students are protesting the tuition hikes AND the budget cuts. In my opinion, choose your battles wisely - suggest budget cuts that won't hurt you too badly BUT don't lose ground on the tuition hikes. You won't win both.
ahhh so easy to blame higher ed. Thank you Patrick.
More to the point thank you Red for bringing sanity to the debate.
Patrick you seem completely oblivious to the fact that, for instance, our community colleges, have, by law, an open door policy. We will take in anybody and do our best to take from were they are and bring them to were they should be.
Low graduation rates, of course given the open door policy and the lack of any kind of half decent high school requirement (thank you no child left behind).
I am spending 55-60 hours a week doing my best to get students to pass for less than 50K a year (with a PhD in the hard sciences). I will however gladly leave students behind if they are not doing the work, I am not a high school teacher (although I make less money than they are and they are not to be blamed either given the lack of funding). The most frustrating part, is people like you dear Patrick that make us so valued in our communities for our countless hours and modest salaries. The fact that higher ed is an after thought in this state is truly "criminal' like you coined it Patrick. Thankfully for me, my credentials allow me to be portable (read here: I got a faculty position elsewhere were education is valued).
It is sad as I enjoyed Nevada, but with people like there is so much one can take and very little chance for a bright future for education in the Silver State.
K-12, Nevada teacher salaries are ranked 23rd in the nation.
In CCSD, teacher salaries are ranked 18th in the nation among school districts.
Nevada has one of the best platinum government retirement programs in the nation.
In many states like California, they are laying off teachers in both k-12 and higher ed. They are also reducing COLA's or freezing salaries or even asking for salary reductions.
Greg,
I was referring to UNLV and UNR. Open enrollment is perfectly ok for the community colleges. It is cheaper and it gives students a chance to see and understand college level coursework at a lower cost.
The problem is the low admission standards and recruitment of students who stand a statistically low chance of graduating UNLV and UNR. It is criminal to take these student's money when they know they stand a good chance of never graduating.
Red,
If you are fine with 65 percent of African Americans getting college debt instead of a degree and a better life, fine be part of the deception not part of the solution.
HS66,
Doctors, nurses and lawyers make well above the national average in salary and if we really have a shortage we can let other states subsidize their degrees and we can buy them up. Most shortages of anything in the market are government induced if the shortage lasts in the long run. So what is the government doing to keep Doctors and nurses from coming here? It has nothing to do with the medical school btw.
Research dollars translate to more dollars for the University. But it does not translate to more dollars for the student's education. In fact a recent paper by the Delta Project found that the bulk of tuition and fee increases over the last decade went to something other than education.
UNLV and UNR should be converted away from research universities -- an average of just 44% of its resources are used educating students and they are very expensive to subsidize.
Kasandra,
Do you ever make relevant points?
HS66,
Graduation rates are not a red herring. Nevada's higher education "Education" spending per full time student (not research spending, not auxiliary spending, not scholarship or other spending) ranks 18th highest in the nation.
18th highest.
The results less than half of our students graduate.
You are trying to focus on inputs not results. Results matter. If you are 18th highest in education spending per pupil and near dead last in graduation rates something is wrong.
Patricia,
You obviously are quite thick. And your conflation of all minorities and their problems into it's the universities fault is laughable.
As said earlier, if they prioritize and make school the goal, they will make it. Unless you can prove a systemic attempt to take away blacks' money to go to school and then intentionally fail them, you border on libel.
They get there. They have all sorts of tools and aids to help them. If they don't do well, what are the reasons. If all you have is the evil school, that's a sophomoric argument at best.
Why are they failing, other than the run of the mill, drinking, partying, and making other things (work or sports) more important. Not to mention that if you got your figures within the last couple years, the economy has made it quite difficult to get through school.
jfnance32 is correct here. If a person subjects themselves to questioning about their integrity then they shall reep the benefits. This person has so many issues that are not to his benefit and they do hang from his house he will never survive a trail. The superiors who support him do so to protect themselves for not doing their jobs while collecting the tax payers money.
redferret, Your comments enforce the critical thinking of: Do you know why a person makes education their minor in college? If they fail at their major anyone can teach. You are an insult to good educators. The world can take almost anything from a person but that person must give their integrity away.
Really homer, have you ever been a teacher, especially at the college level. These kids aren't really kids any more. Additionally, it's not my f'n job to hold their hands during assignments. I give them help, I make myself available when assignments are given. If they can't put the pieces together, then that's their fault. Sorry but there's only so much I can do to get them to pass.
Or how about a list of what I did FOR them to help during history 100
Offered to preview papers before rough drafts were due.
Had office hours, and was willing to make extra hours for a needy student.
Would go over why I graded their paper as such if asked.
Offered a study guide/study session the discussion class before an exam.
Was always open to questions during class, before class, and after class. Ditto with lectures. I would almost always try to get them that extra point or two to give a B- versus a C+.
So what did you do in academia? Did you ever even sit in a desk, let alone stand at the podium? And fyi, Mr, you know everything, my majors were history and english.
http://hrfs.nevada.edu/hrweb/EEList.aspx...
(200k for professors that work 3-4 days, sign me up for that deal)
As a part time instructor in UNLV's college of liberal arts for the last 2 years (and as someone who has seen universities and colleges around the country up close for over 10 years, I agree that UNLV's graduation rate is unacceptable. UNLV has taken steps recently (starting last fall) to improve that rate by increasing student awareness of student services and also putting in place a system which flags students (especially freshmen and sophomores) who are failing a class so that some sort of intervention can take place. These efforts should produce results, though they won't impact the graduation rates for several years, I imagine. THAT SAID, in my (and my professor-spouse's) experience at UNLV is that of Red's: students fail classes because they don't show up for class or because they don't do the work. Period. As to why they don't show up or do the work, there are a lot of reasons, from immaturity to family problems to commuting issues to trying to hold a full time job while being a full time student... the list goes on. What is NOT the culprit is a lack of intellectual capacity. The students admitted to UNLV (including the minority students) are perfectly capable of passing their courses. It isn't Harvard, after all. I'm not sure what exactly Patrick means by "recruiting students it knows will fail." What does that mean? And has he contacted UNLV about its retention efforts?
TAX THE RICH FEED THE POOR UNTIL THERE ARE NO RICH NO MORE
If they would cooperate sooner than later, things would be better. Plans to save money that are implemented now will save money sooner and add up to more savings. We all know that there is not enough money, so procrastination isn't going to help the situation.
Good grief, nance. Can't you tell the truth? Do you & ol' kdr/patrick ever give it a rest with your faulty facts & figures?
And red, YOU are getting a bad shake here, of course, from the "education bashers" that permeate these pages.
First and formost, education BEGINS IN THE HOME.
Anyone who beleives otherwise is a fool.
A strong foundation in the home setting, with education VALUED as a top priority by parents is the key.
The constant arguement by our conservative posters here that some "educational system" has failed to educate is hooey. Stuff & nonsense.
The root of the failure of children to learn and be learned is tied largely to PARENTS that do not value education and do not reinforce the need for such in the HOME SETTING.
A lot of socio-economics is at play here.
If we look at those who fail versus those who succeed in education and life in general, what do we see? Kids from poverty, English language learners, kids with problems in the home, migrant populations; those kids struggle.
The students from well-educated families, those with college educated parents, stable home situations, etc. generally fair very well.
So, are these factors controlled by teachers and professors? Of course not. Do good teachers reach out to help the disadvantaged and lend a hand to the kids that are unprepared to be educated? Of course they do. All day, everyday, in ways large and small, educators reach out to help bridge the gap.
Often, it just isn't enough. Sometimes it works and it's a beautiful thing.
Education professionals in large part are a caring, hard working, intelligent bunch who do a good job for RELATIVELY low wages.
The deniers of this, your NANCES AND KDRS and their ilk are all about one thing, and it ain't your kids education, or lack thereof.
IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. ALL THE TIME. 24-7.
AND ABOUT THE MONEY...
If you think you can improve education AND cut the budgets AND lower salaries, you, my friend,
are WRONG.
If you are posting to bitch about a relatively few UNLV prof's making over a hundred thou, and/or you think CCSD teachers ought to take a pay cut, you are ignorant. look it up, it's a
very apt description.
gmag, You mean "fare". A fair is a carnival, so someone doesn't "fair well". If over a 1,000 NHSE employees make over $100k/year and you consider that relatively few, we need to make sure that the math department offers more courses. I think that $100,000,000+/year given to this group is a HUGE amount of money.
You can download all of the salaries from the HR website and sort in Excel by high to low salaries. I REALLY WANT A JOB WITH A UNLV PROFESSOR SALARY! It is amazing that they are generally not nationally competitive like UNR and they get these salaries! SIGN ME UP!
AND ABOUT THE MONEY...
There isn't enough to go around! Instead of whining about it, make constructive suggestions on what to cut.
I made a mistake when I wrote that 1,000 employees making over $100k/year costs only $100,000,000/year. It's actually MUCH MORE. They receive 7% matching into their retirement accounts, plus benefits and perks.
I think that instead of penalizing everyone with a 6% pay decrease, give people the option to lose the matching in their retirement accounts. Then the lower paid employees won't immediately suffer as much.
nevadaapple... "sign me up!"
Other than correcting my grammar, what might qualify you for one of those hundred thou a year positions? Please, elucidate on the wondrousness of your vast knowledge and talents that would have UNLV falling all over themselves to hire you?
what are you qualifications gmag?
to bring in a bit of perspective here, you cannot be hired as a tenure-track faculty member at UNLV or anywhere else with a Ph.D. Actually you probably also need at least two years of post-doctoral experience.
From the age of 18 to 29 years old (to get my bachelor, master, and PH.D.) I made, each of those years, between 11K to 16K a year and add a 35K student loan to reuimburse.
Should I sign you up for that?
I am a student at TMCC, in Reno, and I would like to point out a few things:
This is my first semester at TMCC, and on one of the first days of class, my mathematics instructor revealed something that was rather shocking to me: About half of the students at TMCC end up failing their math class.
I have an uncommon understanding of math, as well as the way the human mind processes math. As such, I can tutor it rather well. I am currently a tutor elsewhere, and I hope that, after this semester, TMCC will consider me for a math tutor in their Tutoring and Learning Center. For now, though, I have offered my assistance to those that may need it in my class. It is not uncommon for me to speak out in class, so they trust me to know at least some of what they are having trouble with.
There are others, though, who do not seek my assistance, and who I am sure are struggling. They don't go to the Tutoring and Learning Center for assistance, and they don't ask the instructor for help. They don't have passing grades. This is not an uncommon ailment.
The truth is that there is a reason why some people pass and some people don't. It isn't because of a bad professor. If the professor was such a bad teacher, wouldn't everyone fail? In almost every class, there are a number of people succeeding and a number of people failing. Yes, some of the people who are succeeding do so because of the fact that they understand the material better, or that they can study on their own, but what about the others? What about the ones who seek out people in their class who clearly understand the material, who find tutors, or who go to see the professor for help? They succeed because THEY did something, not the professor, not the tutors, not the people who understand the material. If you don't succeed, it's not because someone else did or didn't do something. If you don't succeed, it's not because you were born into poor circumstance. If you don't succeed, it's not because everyone else sucks. If you don't succeed, it's because you didn't live your life as if it was yours to live. You lived it as if others own it. When you live your life like that, you're right.
So please, don't blame others for students not succeeding. I know that if I have trouble in any of my classes, there are resources I can seek out in order to succeed, and that's why I will.
greg, In my opinion, you can not compare the faculty at UNR and UNLV. UNR is ranked higher. I understand the requirements for a tenure track position and the sacrifices that some people make. There is a market value for those skills and it is natural to question salaries in relation to rankings of the university.
Fortheloveoflearning - You are correct that students are responsible for their own success. However, that said, professors are paid to serve students. In my opinion, it is unacceptable for a professor to warn students that 50% are likely to fail. I was once told that this is a well known strategy for scaring students out of a course and then there will be less work, less grading.
It sounds like you may be a professor one day and I hope that you do not use this example of telling students that 50% of them will fail in your courses. I hope that you do as you did in this letter and remind students of the resources available to them.
I have no doubt that there are professors who seek to reduce their class size. However, it should be noted that this was not what my professor was attempting to do. He is passionate about mathematics and teaching it. I am quite sure that there are only a few in his class that will fail. He is, by far, the greatest instructor I have had in ANY subject.
Nevadaappleslices, please understand this: If they cut funding as much as they plan to, I may be one of the students that they turn away. This would not be because of my grades, but because of the financial situation I find myself in. I would hope to return someday, but the potential that you seem to see may be lost. I am but one of many whose potential would be thrown to the wind. I know so many that would be turned away. I see so much potential in so many of them. I would be the second in my family to obtain a bachelor's degree. The first was my sister, who plans on becoming an English teacher. She only barely managed to afford college as it was. I wonder what would have happened to all of her potential if they had cut funding just two years ago.
Are professors overpaid? The answer should be the same as the answer to this question: Are people in their field overpaid?
I saw so many teachers at the schools I attended who were there because they could not last in their field. They were paid less than those who did other things in their fields. With how much they are paid, professors should be more focused on teaching, but do you really want people who cannot find jobs in their chosen fields to be professors in those fields? I have seen some teachers in the various schools I attended that taught because they wanted to, but far more that taught simply because they could do nothing else. I am sure that the experiences of many of the people here were the same. I would be deeply saddened to see the same thing happen to college professors.
Nevadaappleslices, your arguments on professor salaries are eloquently stated, but I worry more about the students taught by underpaid professors than anything else.
I'm sorry, but my opinion is that most professors at a lower ranked university do not need to make above average salaries. In a recession and budget cuts, I can't help but wonder how the university could cut costs so that students are not burdened with higher tuition. Perhaps they should look into increasing teaching loads and letting go of lecturers as a step towards managing costs and keeping tuition more affordable.
Unfortunately, these cuts would make it almost a certainty that students would have to be cut, whether by higher tuition or by entrance by exam, which is what they are now discussing for TMCC students. There is, and I swear this to you on all that is holy and good in this world, that TMCC can take a 40% budget cut without eliminating students in some way. They will have to reduce the staff, which means fewer classes, which means that students will be on a waiting list to attend. Hence, the students that test highest will attend, while others do not.
This means that, sadly, this budget cut would be merely a "quick fix." Over a long period of time, investments in a university system have a positive return on investment. It is not as high here in Nevada, where there is no income tax, but it is positive. Cutting out students would decrease their earning potential, which would decrease the money that they would spend on things often taxed, such as entertainment devices, gaming, books, meals at restaurants, etc. This reduces the revenue of the Nevada legislature as well as Nevada businesses.
The effect is slightly positive at first, but it is followed by an increasingly severe negative effect, as reduced revenue reduces the money the legislature is able to spend on higher education.
This is one of the problems with most of the governments (local, state, national) in America. What they need to do is to invest in projects that will, over time, produce a positive effect for them as far as revenue is concerned. Few programs exist. The ones that do need to be expanded upon and more need to be created. This is one way that a government on any level can ensure revenue exceeding expenses in the future.