New Scholarship at WSU

[_kai_]

Gays can get married in any state and any county or parish. There is no law anywhere keeping gay men from marrying a woman. That goes for gay or straight men alike. There are restrictions, however, precluding men from marrying men.

Boston Legal had a great episode on this very subject.

Lawyered.

[SpanglerFan316]

All of this aside, I have no problem with this scholarship. The more endowed scholarships at every school the better. Or should I have said the more the merrier.

With this http://cjonline.com/news/state/2012-...ossible-10-cut as a future risk, WSU needs as many endowed scholarships as possible.

[SpanglerFan316]

Don Beggs made a decision to "low ball" tuition while KU and KSU jacked up tuition. If Brownback reduces KBOR funding by 10% in FY2014 (and follows up with more cuts), KU and KSU will be in better positions to deal with the cuts than will WSU.

WSU Undergraduate Tuition ($173.50 resident; $441.30 non-resident)

KSU Undergraduate Tuition ($243.90 resident; $647.20 non-resident)

KU Undergraduate Tuition ($293.00 resident; $762.00 non-resident)

[Kung Wu]

Don Beggs made a decision to "low ball" tuition while KU and KSU jacked up tuition. If Brownback reduces KBOR funding by 10% in FY2014 (and follows up with more cuts), KU and KSU will be in better positions to deal with the cuts than will WSU.

WSU Undergraduate Tuition ($173.50 resident; $441.30 non-resident)

KSU Undergraduate Tuition ($243.90 resident; $647.20 non-resident)

KU Undergraduate Tuition ($293.00 resident; $762.00 non-resident)

Do you have access to the break down for each school's operational expenses?

[SpanglerFan316]

No. Is this important? (Each university will adjust to cuts in its own way but, over time, cuts will probably reduce educational opportunities for students. Depending on your definition of "operational expenses" (OOE budget??), you might be mixing RU expenses with GU expenses. For KMUW, an older breakdown is here http://mrcweb.wichita.edu/annualrepo...ort200813.html and here http://webs.wichita.edu/?u=gradschoo...eSchoolMatrix/ is an old one for the graduate school.)

[Kung Wu]

No. Is this important?

In my opinion when you start comparing and complaining about revenue and leave the expense side of the equation out of it, you are presenting an incomplete argument.

I don't know what RU and GU are. But here are some financial statements from the two universities (neither of which use those acronyms so you'll have to shed light on those):

KU for year 2011 (with 2010): http://www.comptroller.ku.edu/financ...AFR_FY2011.pdf

WSU for yar 2010: http://webs.wichita.edu/depttools/de...2010_final.pdf

Interestingly enough, Begg's long term strategy during a poor economic time seems to be working. WSU had an enrollment increase, while KU's enrollment "continues" to decline after 3 straight years of enrollment slipping off:

http://www.news.ku.edu/2011/september/27/enroll.shtml

Yet, WSU has continued to increase market share:

http://www.wichita.edu/thisis/wsunews/news/?nid=1588

Total student credit hours are 161,810 for fall 2011, an increase of 3.2 percent compared to fall 2010, and the highest number of credit hours since at least 1980.

In my opinion this is what we should be complaining about: WSU has nearly 15,000 students but only gets $70M in state funding. KU has just under 30,000 students and gets $225M in state funding.

Obviously state funding is indifferent to enrollment and only based on expenses, so I think WSU should go on a spending spree and build herself a new football stadium. :)

[SpanglerFan316]

Your statement "Obviously state funding is indifferent to enrollment and only based on expenses" is incorrect. Each university gets a block grant based on ... history (?) or enrollment ten years ago (?) or ... I don't know. However enrollment (in terms of full-time equivalents) is or was (when the block grants were established) important.

The distinction between RU and GU funding (and expenses) is very important. The fact that you don't know the differences says a lot about your knowledge of this subject.

[WstateU]

In my opinion when you start comparing and complaining about revenue and leave the expense side of the equation out of it, you are presenting an incomplete argument.

I don't know what RU and GU are. But here are some financial statements from the two universities (neither of which use those acronyms so you'll have to shed light on those):

KU for year 2011 (with 2010): http://www.comptroller.ku.edu/financ...AFR_FY2011.pdf

WSU for yar 2010: http://webs.wichita.edu/depttools/de...2010_final.pdf

Interestingly enough, Begg's long term strategy during a poor economic time seems to be working. WSU had an enrollment increase, while KU's enrollment "continues" to decline after 3 straight years of enrollment slipping off:

http://www.news.ku.edu/2011/september/27/enroll.shtml

Yet, WSU has continued to increase market share:

http://www.wichita.edu/thisis/wsunews/news/?nid=1588

In my opinion this is what we should be complaining about: WSU has nearly 15,000 students but only gets $70M in state funding. KU has just under 30,000 students and gets $225M in state funding.

Obviously state funding is indifferent to enrollment and only based on expenses, so I think WSU should go on a spending spree and build herself a new football stadium. :)

Lets Get-R-Done! :eagerness:

[SpanglerFan316]

:barbershop_quartet_:barbershop_quartet_:barbersho p_quartet_:barbershop_quartet_

[SpanglerFan316]

RU means Restricted Use and RU funds come from grants, external contracts, etc. RU expenses are expenditures required by the grant, contract, etc. and are not related to state funding. An increase or decrease in state funds would not affect RU spending.

GU means General Use and (to the best of my knowledge) largely comes from tuition and state/federal funds that (mostly) do not have specific strings attached.

Note: The statements above might not be completely correct. For example, some state funds might be listed as RU?

A university with 10% GU funding and 90% RU funding is in a completely different situation than one with the same overall budget but 90% GU funding and 10% RU funding. The second example offers much greater flexibility to adjust expenditures in view of cuts (and, possibly, exposure to cuts that are nine times larger).

[Kung Wu]

Your statement "Obviously state funding is indifferent to enrollment and only based on expenses" is incorrect. Each university gets a block grant based on ... history (?) or enrollment ten years ago (?) or ... I don't know. However enrollment (in terms of full-time equivalents) is or was (when the block grants were established) important.

That was a joke. But clearly not a good one.

The distinction between RU and GU funding (and expenses) is very important. The fact that you don't know the differences says a lot about your knowledge of this subject.

Yup, I don't know nuttin'. But I can be learned gooder, if'n you try.

[_kai_]

That was a joke. But clearly not a good one.



Yup, I don't know nuttin'. But I can be learned gooder, if'n you try.

If'n you try.

[SpanglerFan316]

That was a joke. But clearly not a good one.
Yup, I don't know nuttin'. But I can be learned gooder, if'n you try.

No harm meant; it is hard (for me) to read "tone" (intention) on SN and the difference between GU funds and expenditures and RU funds and expenditures is huge. My apology if I caused offense.

[_kai_]

No harm meant; it is hard (for me) to read "tone" (intention) on SN and the difference between GU funds and expenditures and RU funds and expenditures is huge. My apology if I caused offense.

That's me. Some people act so serious on here at times, then make a sarcastic remark, and I don't pick it up. It's frustrating.

[shock]

Lets Get-R-Done! :eagerness:

I do like that plan. I think it would fit nicely without cutting down on basketball parking.