Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Chancellor Dan Klaich outlines possible budget-cutting options during a special budget meeting of the Board of Regents at the College of Southern Nevada, Feb. 2, 2010. The Nevada System of Higher Education is facing a $37 million reduction in state funding as of March 1, and $110 million for the 2011 fiscal year.
Published Tuesday, Feb. 2, 2010 | 10:56 a.m.
Updated Tuesday, Feb. 2, 2010 | 12:29 p.m.
Sun Coverage
Sun Archives
- Higher education faces greatest financial state of emergency in decades (2-2-10)
- With state cuts, how long can teacher salaries be spared? (1-26-10)
- Gibbons to call special session, lawmakers plan public meetings (1-25-10)
- New economic reality: Pessimism (1-23-10)
- State budget comes up $800 million short (1-22-10)
- Forecast: Economy will begin to rebound in mid-2011 (1-22-10)
- Gibbons’ no-talk order further divides branches (1-22-10)
- Special session may require help of state Supreme Court (1-10-10)
- College students band together, rally against budget cuts (1-22-2009)
- Chancellor calls Nevada schools a ‘disaster’ (1-22-2009)
- UNLV fundraising campaign falls short, so deadline extended (12-18-2008)
- Emotional farewells at Regent’s meeting (12-5-2008)
- Rogers to budget cut protestors: Glad you’re here (12-4-2008)
- Fee hikes may become too steep to endure (12-4-2008)
- UNLV fundraisers fighting to the finish (9-1-2008)
- With that pay, no way, many would-be graduate students tell UNLV (5-11-2008)
- Some say setting fees every two years gives universities a blank check (2-16-2008)
Beyond the Sun
The proposed cuts to Nevada’s public colleges and universities represents an “unwinding of almost a decade of significant progress in higher education,” Chancellor Dan Klaich said at today’s special budget meeting of the Board of Regents. “And we’re being asked to do it in a few weeks.”
But Klaich said while increasingly dire projections are being handed down from Carson City, higher education must guard against reacting too hastily.
The regents are meeting to review the findings of the Economic Forum, which estimates revenue flowing to the state. Also on the agenda was discussion of the possibility of declaring what’s known a financial exigency, which means there isn’t enough money in the system to meet expenditures.
The regents can only vote on such action after a recommendation from the chancellor with input from the council of campus presidents.
The last time the issue was discussed was in 1982, although the step wasn’t taken.
Klaich said the higher ed’s prospects won’t be hurt by waiting until the Legislature meets in a special session before regents decide whether a financial exigency needs to be declared.
“The situation is not made materially better or worse with the passage of a short period of time as we watch what happens with the governor and the Legislature,” Klaich said.
An overarching goal needs to be preserving the existing code that governs the system and doing as little harm as necessary, said Regent Michael Wixom.
James Dean Leavitt, chairman of the Board of Regents, said he has asked staff to prepare the paperwork for declaring a financial exigency so that is ready, if needed, at the March meeting.
Today's meeting drew such a large audience at the College of Southern Nevada's West Charleston campus that an overflow room was set up.
The Nevada System of Higher Education is facing a $37 million reduction in state funding as of March 1, and $110 million for the 2011 fiscal year.
The $110 million cut equals a 29.4 percent reduction in funding from the higher ed budget approved by lawmakers during the 2009 session.
To meet the $110 million in cuts by the projected March 1 deadline, Klaich said the Board of regents could choose from three scenarios:
*A 20 percent pay cut across the system.
*At least five additional furlough days per month for employees.
*Laying off 1,290 employees.
During the winter break, Klaich said he met with the presidents of the colleges and universities and encouraged them to prepare reports outlining the impact of budget cuts of 8 percent, which was what was considered a reasonable estimate at the time of what the governor would be asking of higher ed.
But then the Economic Forum met Jan. 22, and “I think our collective breath was taken away, and our planning to date became moot, on that terrible Friday afternoon,” Klaich told the regents.
The revenue shortfalls that are now being projected are nothing short of staggering, Klaich said.
Higher ed has already seen its share of state funding dramatically trimmed, resulting in layoffs across the system, larger class loads for faculty, increased job duties for fewer support staff and thousands of students being turned away because of a lack of available classroom seats, including upward of 5,000 at College of Southern Nevada.
“We are not sitting here before you talking about cuts from whole cloth,” Klaich said. “The cloth is tattered and has holes at this point.”
Declaring a financial exigency would give individual campuses more freedom in reducing personnel costs because existing contracts could be more easily adjusted. It would also allow higher ed administration to operate on an accelerated timeline, bypassing existing requirements for notifying employees and students of possible changes.
To illustrate the size of the budget hole, while emphasizing he wasn’t actually advocating such drastic action, Klaich said the $110 million shortfall could also be met by shutting down entire campuses and programs, with three scenarios of combinations:
*Closing College of Southern Nevada and Nevada State College.
*Closing Great Basin College, Truckee Meadows Community College, Desert Research Institute, University of Nevada School of Medicine as well as Boyd School of Law and UNLV’s dental school.
*Closing Nevada State College, Great Basin College, Truckee Meadows Community College, Western Nevada College, and eliminate UNR and UNLV Athletics and the Agricultural Experiment Station at UNR.
Cutting $110 million from the budget will mean an estimated 15,750 students would be unable to enroll in the Nevada System of Higher Education, a decrease of 14 percent from 2009’s enrollment, Klaich said. And more than 1,000 full-time faculty and staff would lose their jobs.
“We will lose our competitive edge … and add to the already crushing burden of unemployment in this state,” Klaich said. “We will lose the ability to train the workforce for the very economy we wish to attract this state.”
Maybe he'll take a pay cut.
Games. games, and more games.
Let's cut k-12 instead to k-11.
those three options are so dramatic and ridiculous. do they think that the public is only filled with idiots to buy into this?
I'd like for once to hear Smatresk say that the budget cuts will be part of his legacy and that he will be as positive as possible in making cuts and then restructuring the university to offer quality education at an affordable cost to the future students of Las Vegas.
Government doesn't belong in our places of worship or where we study.
SHUT ALL PUBLIC SHOOLS DOWN!
: {
So really they decided nothing at this meeting and just further let us know how "dire" things are and make it sound more dire? Based on reports that was pretty clear for a while now. They've known significant cuts would need to be made but rather than actually make them and save some money NOW they will put it off till March and then, maybe, they will consider the possibility of thinking about deciding if they will make a decision? I doubt even at the March meeting will they have put anything together that even resembles a strategy here.
The idiocy of the prior posts can only be compared to the empty rhetoric of the governor. Wake up people. Your state is venturing into a death cycle. What business is going to come to a state that has dismantled the higher education system?
Great comment HARLEY ! VERY INTELLEGENT! With that and our dumb kids that we aren't teaching now, we'll move from second to last place, to below last place!
Everyone is bitchin' about cuts - no one wants to mae them - even in our homes, but it comes a time, that we gotta do what ever..do you make cuts or raise fees to keep it going...its a viscious circle...
A 20% tax on faculty, staff and students. That would completely shield the rest of the state from any responsibility for educating the next generation. Great idea.
Harley,
There was a time when there were no public schools. Way before there was a middle class. Thomas Jefferson made it possible for all of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia to attend college or university. That model brought about the growth of this nation and a strong, educated citizenry. I'm sure you would love to return to a time when only the richest could go to college or even finish high school. A time when your father chose your profession for you. You can move to Somalia if that's what you want. The rest of us will continue funding education. Don't forget, The Government= WE THE PEOPLE.
Cut the professors who aren't teaching. There are hundreds of them across the state. That alone would save money. Teaching is important, not research.
The universities are here to serve the people at a cost that they can afford. Congrats on the large budget increases when times were good; but now they aren't so good and you need to adjust to offer what people can afford to pay.
Funny that $500k in raises were considered a necessity by Smatresk a few months ago even though they knew that the budget was tight: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/nov...
This doesn't make sense.
One example, an institution like DRI (part of the NV System of Higher Ed), brings in a lot of federal dollars into the state of Nevada. Basically, for every dollar Nevada invests into DRI, they turn it right around and bring in almost 6 times that amount in federal grant money... most of which gets reinvested right back into Nevada to purchase equipment, hire field researchers, etc. DRI is a money-maker for the state.
If we are trying to help Nevada's economy, and diversify the state, why in the world would we think for a second to chop Higher Ed into half like this? Are we TRYING to make a bad situation worse??
Nevada University System Chancellor Dan Klaich stated today that any additional budget cuts to the university system might take one of the following scenarios
1.Closing College of Southern Nevada and Nevada State College.
2.Closing Great Basin College, Truckee Meadows Community College, Desert Research Institute, University of Nevada School of Medicine as well as Boyd School of Law and UNLV's dental school.
3.Closing Nevada State College, Great Basin College, Truckee Meadows Community College, Western Nevada College, and eliminate UNR and UNLV Athletics and the Agricultural Experiment Station at UNR.
Of all of these I believe that the last one has several real and the most promising realities of saving millions in the budget with regards to ending UNR and UNLV athletics. These two programs being disbanded will save millions of dollars being spent as support for major league franchises. I believe the regents must start there first; these are the least vital programs to those wanting a quality university education.
Then I would suggest closing the Boyd School of Law and the UNLV Dental school as the two least needed graduate level programs in the state.
Finally, maybe Nevada has too many community colleges that it can ill afford to support.
dave,
Without research, an institution ceases to be a university. It becomes grades 13-16. You move away from what colleges and universities were established to do if you don't have research. Say good bye to any quality faculty, graduate students, or knowledgeable undergraduates. Cut research? No thanks. Nice try though.
I think if we are to consider cutting Athletics from college, we need to realize that very few entities in the University System actually make money for a university. Football and Men's Basketball are two of those, and in UNLV's case, you have to add the Desert Research Institute and the Hotel College. That's it! Everything else takes money away from the state. That's why the mention of closing something such as the School of Medicine or UNLV's dental school is being explored. Medical programs such as these are extremely expensive to maintain and the gain from students once they leave is minimal. I'm not suggesting that creating athletes is more important than creating doctors and dentists, but it seems counterproductive to eliminate any of the few things that actually make money for the university. And yes, even with the new coaches' contracts for the football team, our slightly below average football program will still make money.
the good news of the day is that when it comes to higher-ed, nevada will give states like mississippi and alabama somebody to look down. no matter how this ends.
The gov only recommends a budget.
It is the Democratic led legislature that actually passes a budget.
So you want to be a hypocrite and just blame Gibbons then go right adhead and play the hypocrite role.
In last regular session the state passed the largest tax increase in Nevada's history.
A few sessions ago the state passed the 2nd largest tax increase in Nevada's history.
k-12 has the biggest part of the budget at around 35%.
Followed by Medicaid, Housing and other welfare programs at 28%.
Followed by higher-ed at 20%.
Then comes public safety at 10%.
Then comes miscellanous departments that round out the other 7%.
The state spending is only returning to the levels before the massive increases that occurred during that last big big tax increase.
They have not been any massive layoffs. Other states have been doing layoffs, salary cuts and benefits cuts.
It is the reality of this economy.
If you do not want to cut higher ed then how much more do you want to cut k-12 or vice-versa.
It is impossible not to cut one without cutting into the other even more. It is called, Math.
Are you asking for another massive tax increase?
If yes, then called your representatives and tell them you will not vote for them otherwise.
Lets see there is a VP of Student Affairs and an Assistant VP of Student Affairs with each probably with a staff besides cutting all administative salaries. Sounds like I could cut costs without impacting the core mission of TEACHING.
Those who say cut research don't understand the role research plays in education, professional development, innovation, and any other facet of life. Do you think people just imagined all of the groundbreaking ideas our society has come up with in the past century on their lunch breaks?
Those who say we should cut athletics miss the point, too. Although few athletic programs are profit centers for a university, they certainly serve a core purpose for the school. Athletic programs help build national recognition for the school, create alumni relationships and community connections, and provide opportunities for students to learn their craft as athletes, trainers, doctors, broadcasters, journalists, photographers, advertisers, managers, and other professions through their associations with athletics.
Couple that with research (there's that word again) showing that alumni donations are highly correlated with athletic performance, and you see why cutting athletics would be detrimental.
Those ripping on UNLV faculty compared to CSN faculty have no idea of the difference between a college and a university. The roles are both important, but they are dramatically different. Don't compare apples and oranges (or teaching loads or salaries).
The truth is, UNLV is a very young university that has come a remarkably long way in just 50 years. When you consider that most of the university's alumni base is still changing diapers, working its way up the corporate ladder, and paying off student loans, one might understand why UNLV doesn't have the large donation base right now to help ween it off of state subsidies. If the university can continue to progress for another 10-20 years, the money will come from willed estates, small gifts from almuni, and corporate gifts directed from successful alumni. Give UNLV a chance to be great and don't compare it to universities that are more than twice as old.
Get rid of all of the Inverted underwater basket-weaving classes, then all of the out of state students. This along with eliminating Criminal invaders would clear away a lot of bad funding choices.
For those who would prefer big time athletics to a real university teaching and doing basic, applied research as well as "pure research" you don't know the first thing about what universities are established for. Do some research on your own for once and find out why Land Grand Colleges like state universities were established for in the beginning.
Jocks contribute really nothing to society except entertainment. What else does a 300 lb football player contribute from his performance on the football field? What does a ball dribbling basketball player contribute excpt entertainment to society as he makes 3 point shots or dunks a ball into a net. What great purpose does a 325 Baseball batter contribute while hitting a homerun except the entertainment value for a few brain dead wanna be jocks and former jocks? Some of the jocks who have "graduated" from UNLV are an embrassment as they can barely speak a sentence without uttering the words, "You know man?...you know... duhhh, you know?"
The biggest myth in America is that athletics contribute millions of dollars to college level institutions from TV revenue, etc. They actually contribute little while draining valuable resources from important academic programs. UNLV spends millions on its defunct athletics and gains very little, even in positive publicity in the process. It is only the bubble-headed dense, metnal midgets and ignorant who want full time and big time athletics in Nevada.
Ending the athletics programs would probably be the only thing to provide a wake-up call significant enough to make people realize that there is no free ride. You want to live in a state that has education and schools (even if they're the worst in the country), roads to drive on, etc. Its time to pay up.
The free ride is over, casinos and tourists cant pay your tax bill anymore.
Progress in what?
Half the students still can't graduate within 6 years.
Patrick, Good point. Do these administrators and profs deserve their six figure salaries if they are not willing to help their students to graduate in 6 years. Doing a better job in helping students to graduate in 4 years would save the university money.
"Get rid of all of the Inverted underwater basket-weaving classes, then all of the out of state students."
Out-of-state students pay more (about $6200 per semester) to attend UNLV than in-state students, assuming the in-state student's tuition is not being paid through the Millennium Scholarship.
So really let's throw out the students who pay MORE in favor of those who pay LESS, and hope we can make it up in quantity?
As for getting rid of "useless classes", that canard was old when Clinton was President. It was old when Reagan was President. It's gone stale.
Couldn't have said it any better newcomer.
"Doing a better job in helping students to graduate in 4 years would save the university money."
Some of that is scheduling - you might have 2 professors who schedule required upper-division classes (both of which you need) at the same time.
Or the prerequisite you need isn't taught the semester you need it (or there's only one section and it's full) and you have to throw together a schedule at the last-minute.
Or after three years you realize you're not happy in your chosen major and change it. Well, now half the credits you've taken don't count towards the new major and you've lost a year to a year and a half because you have to "catch up".
Douglas, there are many reasons for young people to take 6 years to graduate. More guidance from professors and care in scheduling would go a long way in helping out with costs of poor decisions that could have been avoided.
Not saying it won't help (but it will cost more)...but it's not the silver bullet solution you suggest.
No - the state subsidizes in-state student tuition. If they pay that tuition for 4 years instead of 6 years for a student to earn a degree, then it save money. It requires many profs to just start giving students attention like they are already supposed to be doing.
Does anyone else have a problem with the fact that Klaich claimed budget cuts will mean almost 16,000 students can't enroll?
What kind of business shuts its doors to 16,000 customers when they are facing lower than expected revenues?
Seriously? NONE do.
The reason higher education talks like this is because they've lost their focus. Students aren't customers they are a cost. The real focus of higher education has been to employ adults.
"Doing a better job in helping students to graduate in 4 years would save the university money."
How? If the kid doesn't want to pay attention and do the work, and wants to go spend their nights playing beer pong at Blondies or hang out at the Double Down, what is the professor going to do about it?
In addition to the scheduling conflicts mentioned above, remember that students pay based on how many classes they take. Graduating in 5 years costs the same (in university costs - student expenses like gas is more, obviously) as it does in 6 years. Still the same ~130 credit hours, the same prices for books, fees, etc. Maybe they get your for two semesters extra of student health or the new gym they build in part of the T&M parking lot.
Most kids I knew at UNLV had jobs. Most took 5-6 years to graduate because they were only taking 10-14 credits per semester so they could work 30-40 hours a week. Scheduling 15-18 credits per semester is nigh impossible in smaller colleges where they only offer one section of that class you need, and the only offer it every other semester (in either the spring or fall), and its a pre-req. for other classes so you cant move much of your schedule around.
(Side note: I always thought it was odd that the Engineering college made you meet with an adviser every semester - if you cant engineer your own class schedule, maybe you shouldn't be an engineer?)
"If they pay that tuition for 4 years instead of 6 years for a student to earn a degree, then it save money."
Millennium Scholarships max out at $10,000 regardless of how long it takes. And you have to pay full price for each credit in excess of 12 you take, plus fees.
Most programs require a minimum of 130 credits to graduate. Spread across 8 semesters that's just slightly over 16 credits per semester - and UNLV considers over 16 credits to be "overload".
Yet another agency cutting back when the obvious is smacking them right upside the head, quit spending Americans money on illegal immigrants and other freebies that don't work and have never worked, budget problem fixed.
Also quit pay management a salary in line with the economy and present enrollment. The higher management is overpaid for the services provided and makes too much money for what they actually produce. Fire the deadbeats who are just working to get a paycheck and don't produce anything useful let alone productive.
Lastly, when your building or remodeling, quit having so much overhead administer the contracts and hold the Architects accountable for their design defects and lack of knowledge. Just because they draw lines on a piece of paper and assemble the design team doesn't make them right let alone smart. Today's Architects and designers are the dumbest of dumb, contractors have to staff projects with so many project engineers for document control it adds large sums of monies to the overall cost and the designers are never held accountable.
By taking a few simple steps and actually seeing them through and holding them accountable, budget problem solved. Instead they whine, complain, and use fear tactics to suck money from us taxpayers who have a budget and are held accountable, if we weren't we'd be in the poor house just like the public system.
Maybe some deep pay cuts will force many of our educators to reevaluate the nature of our economy and how they are an intrinsic part of it despite their "tenure" and other protections normally provided by their ivy walls.
I have long maintained that our entire educational system, K-college has been built and nurtured in a vacuum without understanding or adjusting to the changing nature of the worlds economic order.
It may sound cold but We are all going to have to make adjustments (make less money) in the new reality we have brought upon ourselves. Ultimately, no segment of our economy will be spared from these transitional changes.
As a former American manufacturer who saw his industry sold out to China, and as a man who subsidizes his 'retirement' by substitute teaching, I think I know what I'm writing about.
"There is nothing which better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness." - George Washington, Address to Congress, Jan. 8, 1790
One word
Powerball
Well that is why they call it a "Recession". It's a reversal of progress.
End the taxpayer subsidies to the medical school, dental school, law school and athletics, by privatizing them. End Nevada State College.
That's $70 million a year, according to the state budget office.
The remaining $40 million should not be hard to get through efficiencies, smaller pay cuts, and fee hikes, without damaging the missions of the campuses.
Patrick, dude, go take economics. Businesses charge their customers a price above cost. Higher education is subsidized and its price controlled. Smatresk (who i usually don't agree with) has correctly pointed out that, even with the state subsidy, UNLV is not allowed by the Legislature to charge a price high enough to cover costs for nursing students, engineering students, and other high cost students.
The Legislature needs to stop trying to be the super Regents and allow the universities to actually match prices to costs. Most universities around the country have raised fees on out of state and international students to help with their budget deficits. When UNLV does that, the LEGISLATURE takes the money and puts it in the state general fund.
Democrats want to raise taxes and Republicans want to cut expenditures, but neither is willing to fundamentally address the seemingly flawed educational model that we've grown accustomed to. Rather than the state (aka We the People) funding institutions & organizations, maybe it would be more effective to offer scholarships/vouchers (of about $1000 per month per student, ages 5-21) and have these institutions & organizations compete for customers (students). Zero fund the bureacracy and have ALL schools compete -- those that satisfy the customers will thrive, those that don't will fail. Can't be any worse than what we have now.
I am ashamed at some of the ignorance in this state. Education has a direct correlation with Socioeconomic Status. That is why white males were so relcutant to let women or minorites access to higher education. It was a way of keeping them down and controlling them. If things continue in this pattern, Nevada will become one of the poorest poulations with the worst educated people in the United States. No one of real intelligence will move here and all the smart people will move away. Shame on you Nevadans! Now it is time for all of us to pay, not just those that work for the state.
"I am ashamed at some of the ignorance in this state. Education has a direct correlation with Socioeconomic Status"
I am sure about the ignorance of the state.
We have one of the highest capita per income in the nation. (I guess you don't know that a hell of lot of blue collar workers on the Strip make over $100k a year.)
So what correlation exactly are you talking about?
I do see a directly correlation of one between you and your ignorance of facts.
Cut athletics everywhere in this state K-12 and at the university level. We need fully educated citizens not more jocks going, "Yeah, you know man, huh? you know...duh, know what I mean, man?"
Sarge,
20 years ago, Nevada was 120% of the national average income. Today about 105% and dropping. Wages in the big casinos are not keeping up relative to others in the national economy, and its been that way for more than 10 years.
I think we are at a point in time when we need to believe that the future is going to be different. There will always be great jobs here for people without education, but its time to start thinking about getting more jobs that require some.
"Cut athletics everywhere in this state K-12 and at the university level."
Football and men's basketball are revenue generators, so expecting a university President to cut them would be like expecting them to spontaneously generate a second head. If you keep those two, you have to keep sufficient women's programs to provide equal opportunity to all students. Unless you want to pay for the Title IX lawsuit that will happen.
Smart plan you have there.
Old,
Nevada still is one of the wealthiest states in the nation and it still has one of the lowest poverty rates. If Nevada was a European country we'd even be the 2nd wealthiest.
Interestingly our drop also coincides with massive increases in government spending. At best, you can't say it has helped us. That is certainly true with education.
Old,
You'll find that higher education is facing government induced hyperinflation. That said, they could see a drop in revenue and still retain students if they get back to the basics.
Other than that, yes it is true that subsidized industries can't meet the demand of their customers when the subsidies fall. But like I just said, this is one industry which has seen its costs skyrocket on expenditures unrelated to students.
UNR for example spent over $30,000 per pupil, yet only $15,000 was "student related" a little less than that was "instructional" related.
Old,
Privatizing the medical, dental, and law school is a good idea. It isn't fair that taxpayers should have to subsidize the education of professionals who will make a substantial amount of money more than they will (rob the poor to pay the rich). All of those people will make enough money to easily pay back the costs of private school.
Nevada will always need doctors and lawyers so not having a public school will not lead to some decrease in supply (we can let Californians subsidize their education and we can buy up their services on the cheap).
Governor Deval Patrick today unveiled a $28.2 billion budget proposal for the next fiscal year, saying that despite economic challenges the state must continue to build on the progress it has made in the past several years.
The budget represents a 3 percent increase over estimated spending for the current fiscal year, based on a 3.2 percent increase expected in revenues.
"This budget reflects our collective values and makes investments in critical areas that will help us strengthen our economy in the near-term and position us for growth and prosperity over the long-term," Patrick said in his budget message, which was posted on his state website.
Noting that he had made tough choices in preparing the budget, the governor's office said Patrick had recommended nearly $800 million in cuts, including: a $56 million cut to adult dental services covered by MassHealth; a $9 million cut in the Department of Transitional Assistance Employment Services program; a $5 million cut in the Quinn Bill program; a $1.5 million reduction to one-stop career centers; and a $3.2 million reduction to state parks.
The budget also includes cuts to social service and youth violence prevention programs, advocates said.
In the budget message, Patrick emphasized that he had spared from budget cuts aid to local schools and to cities and towns. He said he had also maintained the state's commitment to support the health care reform law that has brought health insurance to 97 percent of the state's residents.
Patrick said the education and health care investments were part of a strategy "to create jobs, speed economic recovery and promote long-term prosperity for the Commonwealth."
Patrick said his budget would also include the next phase of reform in the state's pension system, a reorganization of the parole and probation departments, as well as a "more coordinated approach to purchasing energy for state government and additional budget reforms to promote sound fiscal practices and transparency."
"Our fiscal year 2011 budget blueprint reflects the simple notion that we must continue moving forward. No matter how challenging the economic climate, we cannot afford to retreat from the important progress we have made over the last several years," he said.
Patrick administration officials say that, during his administration, the state budget has increased 0.6 percent a year, compared with an average growth rate of 4.6 percent in the preceding 16 years.
Patrick is announcing the details of his spending plan, which covers the fiscal year that stretches from July 1 to June 30, 2011, at a news conference at this hour at the State House.
The announcement of the governor's budget is just the first step in the budget dance. The House and Senate will produce their own versions of the budget and agree on a compromise version before sending a final bill to the governor's desk.
"All of those people will make enough money to easily pay back the costs of private school."
You haven't been watching the news, now have you?
The legal profession is experiencing one of the worst contractions in the last decade. Many 2009 law school graduates were told that there were no jobs for them and that they should wait until 2010 to look for work (and that's likely to happen again this year). Too bad their student loans (which are often private loans and have almost no options for forebearance or deferment) couldn't wait.
Heck, many people who graduated law school 5 or 6 years ago can't find work as lawyers because law firms aren't hiring.
Folks, understand this: Education is NOT a business. It's NOT about making money, but about educating people. Research done now might cost a lot of money, and might not offer an immediate return, but this same research could be what's building this country's future. Some of the best ideas, and technology, and cures for diseases, have come out of research done at higher ed institutions. Stop referring to a university as it were a retail shop, please, let's use our common sense. Privatizing is not the solution either. Some of the bigots posting here still believe that "the free market will take care of everything" and that public education is a failure. We had 8 years in which this country followed that kind of philosophy, and that resulted in one of the worst recessions in our history. So, why insist? Pure ideology? I still don't understand...
I'm glad that more colossal budget cuts are coming to UCLA. College is a huge scam to get you into debt.
Politicians forgot that not everyone had to go to college to have a good life. Many people went directly into the job market upon graduation. Others went to trade school. Others opted for other life experiences. Over the past 20 years, it has become a mandate almost to have a college degree. You want to have a job mailing letters as an admin - where is your college BA? The problem is that college degrees mean little to nothing now. As a result, more people had to go to college and get a degree to get almost any job. The basic issue continues to be: Where are the jobs Obama? Where are the jobs? What is congress, Reid, Pelosi doing so people can get a job without a college degree to type letters?
I agree with lovestohike, not everyone needs or wants to go to college. Politicians are so nieve thinking that they can tell the public what they need or want. Federal dollars have artificially propped up the cost of college just like everything else government throws money at. My other example is the housing market.
What I didn't know is that many universities have lobbyists and this may surprise some but the more federal funding only increase the presence of lobbyists and that goes for every industry. If no money was handed out, they would disappear.
The education business is corrupt. College grads can't find jobs and they have huge student loan debt. Even RN's are having a harder time finding jobs. Those videos where people show you their bill from Sallie Mae are scarier than SAW 6. I would rather stock shelves at Walmart than get 6 calls a day from Sallie Mae forever.
http://www.bostonherald.com/business/gen...
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-jo...
Patrick Gibbons wrote: " It isn't fair that taxpayers should have to subsidize the education of professionals who will make a substantial amount of money more than they will (rob the poor to pay the rich). All of those people will make enough money to easily pay back the costs of private school."
This is a subtle twisting of the truth. By having state professional schools you actually make it more likely that poor or underprivileged kids get a chance to achieve the American Dream and get to have a profession such as Doctor, Lawyer, or Dentist. The idea is to help talented people achieve something great - not stop them. Easy access to education is one way you help build strong societies. Gibbon's argument is not logical and more than a little dangerous. Hopefully, no one will take him seriously.
Undisciplined progress after undisciplined undertow of recession. And next decade starts by undervaluing significant progress of scholastic period. Wat kost een kameer met volledig pension?
For those that state that the athletics brings in big bucks, you have not read the statistics. UNLV basketball brings in cash, which is then used to FUND OTHER ATHLETICS!
The UNLV football ran an annual DEFICIT of $3 million.
So let me see, we have athletics to get a profit to prop up the rest of athletics.....
Get rid of football and any other money loser, keep the profitable ones and put the cash into the students.
When I was in college, most of my classes were taught by TAs because the professors were all too busy doing their research to publish.
Get rid of any professor who all they do is publish, not bring in research dollars and have their TAs teach their classes.
"Get rid of football and any other money loser, keep the profitable ones and put the cash into the students."
Again, you can't keep just the profitable ones. Not unless you want a Title IX lawsuit thrown at the state for gender inequality.
For every men's sport you keep, you have to keep sufficient women's sports to provide gender balance. That's federal law. Don't like it? Take it up with them.
vegas resident,
If your number is correct than they need to make some cuts. The problem is that the school can operate like this because they know that they can up tuition or the government will pick up the tab.
I don't think the program should be cut but I do think someone with that ability to balance a budget should take over the program.
Once again, if your numbers are correct.
Spending money is progres??
"The revenue shortfalls that are now being projected are nothing short of staggering".
Does the projection include the claims in UNLV's risk management dept. for criminal neglect by UNLV Boyd Law School grads upon graduation?
I have read the comments with great interest. There is one point that should be made: that for many students the college experience involves a year or so reaching freshman levels in reading, writing and mathmatics. Only then do students "start" with higher education.
The fact is that the community colleges and universities here and elsewhere are strapped with the costs of doing in a year what public education didn't do in 12 years. Without getting into a debate about what ails the public schools, higher education in this state gets the job done. If you cut the colleges, you will harm those individuals who seek what they should have learned in High School. It is the best fix we have right now for the failing public schools.
"Does the projection include the claims in UNLV's risk management dept. for criminal neglect by UNLV Boyd Law School grads upon graduation?"
You can't sue your lawyer's law school if they're incompetent or criminally negligent.
Seriously, a few seconds on Google would have told you that.
Chancellor Klaich and the Board of Regents: Please get serious about offering solutions to this crisis and stop focusing on the doom and gloom scenarios. Politicking is needed, but so are practical solutions to an issue that looks to be around for several years to come.
Now, begin the process of carefully examining NSHE schools' budgets, their staff and instructors' productivity (or lack thereof), and you will find some areas to cut that pose little threat to students' ability to learn and take courses. Seriously.
Unfortunately this will probably not be enough to satisfy our Governor, so now is the time for innovative, long-term thinking and if the Board of Regents cannot come up with some new ideas, then they should be replaced for others who can. I know they're out there! At this point in time, Nevada simply cannot afford to settle for mediocrity in its leadership.