New Dorm Construction?

[PSUFTG2]

Penn State proposes housing project near Lasch Football Building. Will all students benefit? (msn.com)

More troubling, IMO, is the push to cram more students into UP.
All while:
- Due to plummeting yields on enrollments vs acceptances (especially among out-of-state applicants), and the addiction to out-of-state tuition revenue, PSU's academic quality is plummeting.
- Due to PSU accepting at such a high rate for UP (in order to fill the pre-determined number of seats), most Commonwealth Campuses are becoming ghost towns - at least in part due to the pool of potential CWC admissions being depleted by UP offers.
- The demographics of High School Graduates (especially in the Northeastern part of the nation), is about to drop into the long-feared "enrollment cliff", due to low birth rates in the late 2000s.

And the nuances of the proposed (assumedly, though the Board really hasn't received any details - as has become the SOP) "Public Private Partnership" raise more questions than answers.

All in all, a huge potential expenditure emanating from a very curious and mysterious series of events. Wherein the goals might reasonably be assumed to be incongruent with any mission to enhance the quality/affordability of a PSU education - - - - - but rather for some "other" mission.

 

[Nitt1300]

yes- let's spend it out of existence.

 

[MtNittany]

That should help lower tuition. Just ask them.

 

[IBeBlockin]

Thank you Barry for the post. If possible, can you please expand on the following?

“ All in all, a huge potential expenditure emanating from a very curious and mysterious series of events.”

 

[BobPSU92]

 

[Nitt1300]

Thank you Barry for the post. If possible, can you please expand on the following?

“ All in all, a huge potential expenditure emanating from a very curious and mysterious series of events.”

 

[NittPicker]

It seems the main complaint is the lack of transparency by certain members of the board. No doubt that's a problem which needs to be addressed. Beyond that, IDGAF. Of course the purpose of the plan is to benefit student athletes (if that term even applies anymore). If it's within the rules, a la Auburn, big deal. Lubrano mentioned looking into building to the west. That's a great idea. Do it. But Anthony (and Fenchak), you're not that obtuse. Of course you know the proposal is to bring more benefits to student athletes. Why is that a problem?? It's 2024 and there are hundreds of millions of dollars being thrown into what will be the P2. Wanna be competitive?? If yes, then you need infrastructure which will attract the best talent. If no, then drop out of the Big Ten and join the PSAC. I'm sure they'd love to have us. People need to free themselves from the mindset that long term sustained success can be done on the cheap.

As Ozzy sang - "You're either in or in the way".

 

[LB99]

Another “Sky is falling” thread. Awesome. Maybe Tom could merge them all into one giant cesspool complaint conversation.

 

[MtNittany]

I was just looking for PSU's "endowment" total. Didn't find it, but found Penn's (the school that willingly supported the pedophilia of one of their professors). $21B.

Why is anyone paying tuition to attend Penn? What do they need $21B for? If it was a private citizen worth $21B - good on them. It's up to them to do what they want with it.

But this is a private University that charges tuition and makes kids take out stupid loans to attend. Why? Couldn't the investment income pay the tuition of every spoiled snot that gets through their (I'm sure, fair and square) admission process?

 

[BobPSU92]

It seems the main complaint is the lack of transparency by certain members of the board. No doubt that's a problem which needs to be addressed. Beyond that, IDGAF. Of course the purpose of the plan is to benefit student athletes (if that term even applies anymore). If it's within the rules, a la Auburn, big deal. Lubrano mentioned looking into building to the west. That's a great idea. Do it. But Anthony (and Fenchak), you're not that obtuse. Of course you know the proposal is to bring more benefits to student athletes. Why is that a problem?? It's 2024 and there are hundreds of millions of dollars being thrown into what will be the P2. Wanna be competitive?? If yes, then you need infrastructure which will attract the best talent. If no, then drop out of the Big Ten and join the PSAC. I'm sure they'd love to have us. People need to free themselves from the mindset that long term sustained success can be done on the cheap.

As Ozzy sang - "You're either in or in the way".

I’m dumb, but if it weren’t for the ncaa rule, then PSU could build a 100% athletic dorm out of athletic department (football) money. Then we wouldn’t have some of these debates. So, thanks to the ncaa rule, this is a broader university problem. I blame the ncaa.

 

[PSUFTG2]

As I said to the Board back in February:
The first and primary way to start making improvements is to stop making unwise decisions.
Some decisions are more difficult than others- but many are made more difficult by failing to stick to the basic principles.
If an action helps the organization achieve its missions, you do it. If it doesn't (and especially if it harms the missions) you don't.

If the missions are to enhance the quality and affordability of the educational mission, this one would appear likely to be a "not" - for the reasons outlined above (based on what we know as of now). And approving of it would be an "unwise decision" - which must be avoided.
That has nothing (NOTHING) to do with "Athlete Housing" (FWIW, as of today, "athlete housing" has never even been presented as an issue by Board or University leadership. That also doesn't mean I dismiss Anthony's concerns vav what might be driving this proposal. It surely, IMO, isn't to improve PSU's educational mission. So he may be absolutely correct. Though the things that would make it a "no go" are independent of that.)

 

[NittPicker]

If the missions are to enhance the quality and affordability of the educational mission, this one would appear likely to be a "not" - for the reasons outlined above (based on what we know as of now). And approving of it would be an "unwise decision" - which must be avoided.
That has nothing (NOTHING) to do with "Athlete Housing" (FWIW, as of today, "athlete housing" has never even been presented as an issue by Board or University leadership)

Would the proposed construction have a negative impact on quality and affordability and thus interfere with the educational mission? If not, then why be opposed?? "Athlete housing" may not have been explicitly discussed but acting as though it's not a factor is simply putting your head in the sand. The reality in 2024 is hundreds of millions of dollars are being channeled into the athletics departments of a shrinking number of universities (P2). If you're opposed to that then please say so. It's alright to think universities shouldn't have multi million dollar athletics budgets but that's a different debate.

 

[Midnighter]

Abundantly clear in this article is that alumni elected trustees very much operate on a 'need to know' basis, and mostly, do not 'need to know' what the BOT is going to do because they cannot do one single damn thing about it.

 

[TiogaLion]

It seems the main complaint is the lack of transparency by certain members of the board. No doubt that's a problem which needs to be addressed. Beyond that, IDGAF. Of course the purpose of the plan is to benefit student athletes (if that term even applies anymore). If it's within the rules, a la Auburn, big deal. Lubrano mentioned looking into building to the west. That's a great idea. Do it. But Anthony (and Fenchak), you're not that obtuse. Of course you know the proposal is to bring more benefits to student athletes. Why is that a problem?? It's 2024 and there are hundreds of millions of dollars being thrown into what will be the P2. Wanna be competitive?? If yes, then you need infrastructure which will attract the best talent. If no, then drop out of the Big Ten and join the PSAC. I'm sure they'd love to have us. People need to free themselves from the mindset that long term sustained success can be done on the cheap.

As Ozzy sang - "You're either in or in the way".

This may be the dumbest post I've read on this board yet.

 

[TiogaLion]

Another “Sky is falling” thread. Awesome. Maybe Tom could merge them all into one giant cesspool complaint conversation.

This post is in 2nd place for dumbest post on this board.

 

[NittPicker]

This may be the dumbest post I've read on this board yet.

Then please, give a rebuttal. It's easy to criticize but not offer an alternative.

 

[SleepyLion]

I was just looking for PSU's "endowment" total. Didn't find it, but found Penn's (the school that willingly supported the pedophilia of one of their professors). $21B.

Why is anyone paying tuition to attend Penn? What do they need $21B for? If it was a private citizen worth $21B - good on them. It's up to them to do what they want with it.

But this is a private University that charges tuition and makes kids take out stupid loans to attend. Why? Couldn't the investment income pay the tuition of every spoiled snot that gets through their (I'm sure, fair and square) admission process?

The answer to the question I emphasized above is, "because the spoiled snots that get through the admission process are willing to pay."

 

[LB99]

This post is in 2nd place for dumbest post on this board.

Says the old white guy complaining at the sky.

 

[LionJim]

Barry has worked hard to earn my trust. PSU is lucky to have him on the board.

 

[Midnighter]

The answer to the question I emphasized above is, "because the spoiled snots that get through the admission process are willing to pay."

Penn States endowment is about $4bn FYI.

 

[Nitt1300]

Penn States endowment is about $4bn FYI.

small potatoes indeed

 

[PSUFTG2]

Would the proposed construction have a negative impact on quality and affordability and thus interfere with the educational mission?

Yes. It appears so (for all of the reasons outlined above). So, at this point, EOS.

It is not that difficult.

 

[PSUFTG2]

Abundantly clear in this article is that alumni elected trustees very much operate on a 'need to know' basis, and mostly, do not 'need to know' what the BOT is going to do because they cannot do one single damn thing about it.

What is clear in reality is that ALL of the trustees, save a few (not just the Alum Trustees) are kept in the dark.

The difference is that a few trustees (TTBOMK, a few Alum trustees) actually seek out information - usually facing obstacles from Board leadership.
Most, based on what I see, run from information (what has been referred to as "adamantly ignorant") and appear to actively not want to know. I think that is a fair representation - and borne out, abundantly, through the record (including items like voting "Aye" without exception over hundreds and hundreds of decisions) - though some, I am sure, might want to disagree.
That, if true, is a huge problem.

 

[PSUFTG2]

small potatoes indeed

Actually:

1) I think it may be closer to $5 B - but Midnighter's estimate works fine in broad strokes. It is in that general area, for sure.
2) It is probably in the top 20 (largest) for all public universities. It certainly should be - as PSU is the largest (as far as alumni base), and one of the oldest large public universities in the nation.


EDIT: A quick "WIKI check" has PSU 11th among public universities vav endowment $ size - 5th in the Big Ten (among publics), 7th overall in the Big Ten (when including USC and Northwestern - the 2 privates)

 

[Countrylion]

What is clear in reality is that ALL of the trustees, save a few (not just the Alum Trustees) are kept in the dark.

The difference is that a few trustees (TTBOMK, a few Alum trustees) actually seek out information - usually facing obstacles from Board leadership.
Most, based on what I see, run from information (what has been referred to as "adamantly ignorant") and appear to actively not want to know. I think that is a fair representation - and borne out, abundantly, through the record (including items like voting "Aye" without exception over hundreds and hundreds of decisions) - though some, I am sure, might want to disagree.
That, if true, is a huge problem.

They are building the dorms for athletics Barry because the current dorms where athletes live are an embarrassment. Everybody knows this.

 

[PSUFTG2]

They are building the dorms for athletics Barry because the current dorms where athletes live are an embarrassment. Everybody knows this.

Whether that be someone's perception or not:
It is all irrelevant to the issue at hand if that proposal is "unwise" wrt PSU's mission to provide a quality affordable education.

Obviously, there will also be those who do not view a quality, affordable education as a priority mission of the University. But that is a whole different issue.

 

[BobPSU92]

Whether that be someone's perception or not:
It is all irrelevant to the issue at hand if that proposal is "unwise" wrt PSU's mission to provide a quality affordable education.

Obviously, there will also be those who do not view a quality, affordable education as a priority mission of the University. But that is a whole different issue.

You can’t have quality or affordable, but you can’t have both.

 

[PSU Mike]

It seems the main complaint is the lack of transparency by certain members of the board. No doubt that's a problem which needs to be addressed. Beyond that, IDGAF. Of course the purpose of the plan is to benefit student athletes (if that term even applies anymore). If it's within the rules, a la Auburn, big deal. Lubrano mentioned looking into building to the west. That's a great idea. Do it. But Anthony (and Fenchak), you're not that obtuse. Of course you know the proposal is to bring more benefits to student athletes. Why is that a problem?? It's 2024 and there are hundreds of millions of dollars being thrown into what will be the P2. Wanna be competitive?? If yes, then you need infrastructure which will attract the best talent. If no, then drop out of the Big Ten and join the PSAC. I'm sure they'd love to have us. People need to free themselves from the mindset that long term sustained success can be done on the cheap.

As Ozzy sang - "You're either in or in the way".

Okay, so please provide your modeled estimates of increased revenue due to increased competitiveness. How much will flow through the AD coffers (whose surplus used to be returned to the general budget), and how much will flow through increased demand to attend UP? And on that second element, what is the breakout between higher enrollment and higher tuition?

 

[J.E.B]

They are building athletic dorms because Franklin wants them because what Franklin wants Franklin gets… hopefully Krafty is holding him accountable. A dome is also going to be built because Franklin doesn’t want anyone else in Holuba. It’s all about the Franklins…

 

[J.E.B]

Okay, so please provide your modeled estimates of increased revenue due to increased competitiveness. How much will flow through the AD coffers (whose surplus used to be returned to the general budget), and how much will flow through increased demand to attend UP? And on that second element, what is the breakout between higher enrollment and higher tuition?

They can’t do that because there is no tangible return other than to say “if we don’t, we will fall behind” and if we fall behind the financial and economic impact to the program and HV will be significant. It’s typical government spending. Wait till you see the overruns for the stadium renovations…

 

[BobPSU92]

They are building athletic dorms because Franklin wants them because what Franklin wants Franklin gets… hopefully Krafty is holding him accountable. A dome is also going to be built because Franklin doesn’t want anyone else in Holuba. It’s all about the Franklins…

Remember that Neeli, Kraft, and Franklin are maligned aligned.

 

[Nitt1300]

You have to spend money to waste money.

 

[pioneerlion83]

Penn State proposes housing project near Lasch Football Building. Will all students benefit? (msn.com)

More troubling, IMO, is the push to cram more students into UP.
All while:
- Due to plummeting yields on enrollments vs acceptances (especially among out-of-state applicants), and the addiction to out-of-state tuition revenue, PSU's academic quality is plummeting.
- Due to PSU accepting at such a high rate for UP (in order to fill the pre-determined number of seats), most Commonwealth Campuses are becoming ghost towns - at least in part due to the pool of potential CWC admissions being depleted by UP offers.
- The demographics of High School Graduates (especially in the Northeastern part of the nation), is about to drop into the long-feared "enrollment cliff", due to low birth rates in the late 2000s.

And the nuances of the proposed (assumedly, though the Board really hasn't received any details - as has become the SOP) "Public Private Partnership" raise more questions than answers.

All in all, a huge potential expenditure emanating from a very curious and mysterious series of events. Wherein the goals might reasonably be assumed to be incongruent with any mission to enhance the quality/affordability of a PSU education - - - - - but rather for some "other" mission.

New dorms? For both athletes and the general students? For sure. Just get it done. And get out of the way.
The cost of downtown housing for general students is abominable, and the lack of space on campus for both athletes and general students is in dire need of a capacity increase. Just. Get. It. Done.

 

[BobPSU92]

You have to spend money to waste money.

There’s plenty more where that came from.

 

[BobPSU92]

New dorms? For both athletes and the general students? For sure. Just get it done. And get out of the way.
The cost of downtown housing for general students is abominable, and the lack of space on campus for both athletes and general students is in dire need of a capacity increase. Just. Get. It. Done.

At any cost?

 

[Midnighter]

Whether that be someone's perception or not:
It is all irrelevant to the issue at hand if that proposal is "unwise" wrt PSU's mission to provide a quality affordable education.

Obviously, there will also be those who do not view a quality, affordable education as a priority mission of the University. But that is a whole different issue.

Does anyone believe PSU’s mission is to provide a ‘quality, affordable education?’ When was the last time they did that? I’d say it’s to provide revenue for State College.

 

[pioneerlion83]

At any cost?

Define "any cost". Then again, you can't. Its a unique construction project, so cost estimates will have a high level of uncertainty regardless of the design. But its also infrastructure; much needed infrastructure.

"At any cost?" for this project at this time doesn't drive me to be scared and afraid, and getting out pitchforks and torches.

If the state legislature properly supported the university via it's annual appropriation and favorable interest rates for bonds, tuition costs (especially) and costs for infrastructure would not be such an issue every time the BoT has a new budget or a new project in front of it.

 

[pioneerlion83]

Whether that be someone's perception or not:
It is all irrelevant to the issue at hand if that proposal is "unwise" wrt PSU's mission to provide a quality affordable education.

Obviously, there will also be those who do not view a quality, affordable education as a priority mission of the University. But that is a whole different issue.

Mission??? Mission?? Really? That went out the ******* window when the State legislature went cheap on the PSU appropriation back in the mid-80's (and further downhill since), and the parochial state reps keep branch campuses open with very little enrollment to even provide cash flow for keeping the lights on; instead of focusing on a smaller, more efficient state-wide set of campuses, and more focus on UP.

Mission, schMission... nice words, backed up with bupkis by the State of PA government.

 

[PSUFTG2]

Does anyone believe PSU’s mission is to provide a ‘quality, affordable education?’

I do. In fact I think it is - at least - one of the highest priorities. Maybe even Priority #1.
I certainly feel that if it is not a very high priority, the whole thing is FUBAR.

I don't expect that all others share that belief, of course. I don't really have any reason to care if "random folks" believe that, though I do think it should be a common (unanimous) belief among all members of Board and Administration (the folks who are responsible). Sadly, IMO, the evidentiary track record doesn't always look supportive in that regard.

 

[SleepyLion]

Does anyone believe PSU’s mission is to provide a ‘quality, affordable education?’ When was the last time they did that? I’d say it’s to provide revenue for State College.

Some missions are failures. PSU has a mission, but "mission accomplished" is not the result.