Facilities

The defending Big XII Champions
Hypeman
Posts: 3598
Joined: December 16th, 2018, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 143 times
Been thanked: 176 times

Re: Facilities

Post by Hypeman » February 26th, 2020, 8:53 pm

tmcats wrote:
February 25th, 2020, 5:54 pm
i always thought two-year degrees would be a good idea like for agronomy, bookkeeping, teaching, and the like. probably doesn't work for engineering and physics. but my gosh, some of these disciplines do not need four years of college.
Those two year degrees already exist at the community colleges. They have bookkeeping, LPN programs, teacher aide programs, paralegal programs, electrician programs, etc. Do you want your doctor, CPA, lawyer, kids teacher, or bridge builder etc. to have two years of community college?

Our country needs more education at a lower price, not less education at a higher price so we can keep paying millions that allow a few guys to play games coaching football. It’s really disgusting if you think about it. No other country ties these outrageous sports programs to their universities.

ToledoCat#2
Posts: 4148
Joined: December 2nd, 2017, 9:53 am
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Post by ToledoCat#2 » February 26th, 2020, 8:56 pm

Open, well written by a product of our university system who obviously has a closed mind.

Do you not understand that your derogatory comments about me and others is proof positive that you are anything but all inclusive and universally understanding? Perhaps you skipped politically correct class the day inclusiveness was taught.

Plus, you have no idea how much time and money I've spent in my long life doing my best to make KSU the best. Criticism of KSU does not mean I don't care or love my alma mater. Think of it as "educational parenting."

It's a fair question about what someone with a degree in queer studies will do to use that degree in a career. As a taxpayer, I helped pay for those degrees.

ToledoCat#2
Posts: 4148
Joined: December 2nd, 2017, 9:53 am
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Post by ToledoCat#2 » February 26th, 2020, 9:02 pm

Hyper, agree that sports spending is way out of line, but I try to rationalize it by remembering how much donations for academic facilities, scholarships, etc. went up when KSU started winning at football.

Also, I'm not sure that throwing money at higher education results in better education for our students. Need-based funding makes more sense when a need is identified and funding sought and found for it.

Hypeman
Posts: 3598
Joined: December 16th, 2018, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 143 times
Been thanked: 176 times

Post by Hypeman » February 26th, 2020, 9:05 pm

wild@nite wrote:
February 26th, 2020, 5:19 pm
mustang wrote:
February 26th, 2020, 11:15 am


A two year program to teach? My daughter is an elementary teacher (Austin, TX) and there is a lot more content than a two year program.
No there isn't really. 2 years of general, then you start your "educational blocks" where you actually learn teaching strategies, followed by a student teaching semester. I went through the secondary and my kid went through the elementary curriculum. I can assure you, I learned very little in years one and two that have assisted me in my teaching expertise. Many, many teachers will tell you the same. Teaching is about developing a philosophy, learning classroom management strategies, learning to build relationships, learning liability, etc... Not sitting in a lecture hall with 200 others and being exposed to the poor teaching methods of a monotone lecturer who doesn't give a rip if you're even in attendance.
I don’t know about teaching degrees, but my field has gotten more complex over the years, and communication, statistics, writing etc have become more and more important. And those are things taught in the first two years of core courses.

Hypeman
Posts: 3598
Joined: December 16th, 2018, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 143 times
Been thanked: 176 times

Post by Hypeman » February 26th, 2020, 9:09 pm

ToledoCat#2 wrote:
February 26th, 2020, 9:02 pm
Hyper, agree that sports spending is way out of line, but I try to rationalize it by remembering how much donations for academic facilities, scholarships, etc. went up when KSU started winning at football.

Also, I'm not sure that throwing money at higher education results in better education for our students. Need-based funding makes more sense when a need is identified and funding sought and found for it.
I don’t disagree. Unfortunately KSU is spending its scholarship money on high income kids that don’t have need in an attempt to get better ACTs and better rankings. That tends to be the wealthy KC suburban kids. I’m not sure that ignoring western Kansas kids is the university’s mission, but that’s what it’s doing.

Hypeman
Posts: 3598
Joined: December 16th, 2018, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 143 times
Been thanked: 176 times

Post by Hypeman » February 26th, 2020, 9:29 pm

ToledoCat#2 wrote:
February 25th, 2020, 11:55 am
It will be a difficult chore to change the "elite status" that university profs/teachers believe they have achieved and are entitled to. Yet, that's what's happened in the last 50 years.

I told KSU in the 1980s it was funded "by the momentum of history" more than anything else. A large, entrenched entity like KSU is difficult to change quickly. Probably the most it can be shifted off its present course is 2-3% a year -- that includes mission and operating expenses.

++++++

And, back to the Iowa/Kansas comparison, Iowa's overall economy is just more vibrant and viable long-term than Kansas. That puts its students on a higher fiscal plane than Kansas students.
States like Iowa, Arizona, Wyoming and a few others have made smart decisions by having a small number of public institutions and giving them each their own niche. K-State is currently trying to go head to head with KU and WSU with programs. I suspect that will be unsuccessful.

One thing we don’t talk about is the loss of great faculty in the last decade. We’ve lost many of our best and many that ‘can’t’ get another job are being stuck here permanently. It’s sad to see what’s happened. I’d say reward the professors more so they will stay, but we don’t want to reward many that we currently have. We probably want to do the opposite.

User avatar
stlcatfan
Posts: 6751
Joined: September 9th, 2017, 7:45 am
Has thanked: 11287 times
Been thanked: 2069 times

Post by stlcatfan » February 26th, 2020, 11:25 pm

Hypeman wrote:
February 26th, 2020, 9:09 pm
ToledoCat#2 wrote:
February 26th, 2020, 9:02 pm
Hyper, agree that sports spending is way out of line, but I try to rationalize it by remembering how much donations for academic facilities, scholarships, etc. went up when KSU started winning at football.

Also, I'm not sure that throwing money at higher education results in better education for our students. Need-based funding makes more sense when a need is identified and funding sought and found for it.
I don’t disagree. Unfortunately KSU is spending its scholarship money on high income kids that don’t have need in an attempt to get better ACTs and better rankings. That tends to be the wealthy KC suburban kids. I’m not sure that ignoring western Kansas kids is the university’s mission, but that’s what it’s doing.
Can you explain to me how K-State is spending its scholarship money on wealthy suburban kids over small town middle class kids? I'm not disagreeing with you -- I just need to understand how this is happening. Say a kid gets a 30 on his/her ACT. Whether that kid is from Olpe or Overland Park, wouldn't they both receive the same academic scholarship from K-State or any other school? Or are you saying that K-State needs to put more scholarship money toward families with lower incomes so they can afford college? Of course, kids who come from poorer families qualify for more federal grants and loans, compared to kids from wealthy families.
"Don't believe everything you read on the Internet." -- Abraham Lincoln

Hypeman
Posts: 3598
Joined: December 16th, 2018, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 143 times
Been thanked: 176 times

Post by Hypeman » February 27th, 2020, 8:06 am

stlcatfan wrote:
February 26th, 2020, 11:25 pm
Hypeman wrote:
February 26th, 2020, 9:09 pm


I don’t disagree. Unfortunately KSU is spending its scholarship money on high income kids that don’t have need in an attempt to get better ACTs and better rankings. That tends to be the wealthy KC suburban kids. I’m not sure that ignoring western Kansas kids is the university’s mission, but that’s what it’s doing.
Can you explain to me how K-State is spending its scholarship money on wealthy suburban kids over small town middle class kids? I'm not disagreeing with you -- I just need to understand how this is happening. Say a kid gets a 30 on his/her ACT. Whether that kid is from Olpe or Overland Park, wouldn't they both receive the same academic scholarship from K-State or any other school? Or are you saying that K-State needs to put more scholarship money toward families with lower incomes so they can afford college? Of course, kids who come from poorer families qualify for more federal grants and loans, compared to kids from wealthy families.
The wealthy suburban kids have higher ACT scores because of the private tutoring and ability to afford multiple attempts at the test. That’s factual. Kids from wealthy families will take it 6-8 times, use a tutor, and ultimately get higher scores. As a result, most of k-states scholarship money goes to kids from high income families that don’t need scholarships and can afford the tuition. You can look that up. Furthermore, beyond a baseline ACT, kids don’t perform better in college. The conclusion in the academic world is that ACT beyond around a 24, only correlates with family socio-economics. As a result, some schools are dropping ACT entirely.

As of last year, KSU is directing its recruiting budget almost entirely to the KC suburbs. That makes some sense. But, KSU has also increased the ACT scores needed for scholarships which only helps the suburban kids where the resources for getting a higher ACT are more accessible. Most western Kansas high schools don’t have the tutoring and guidance counselors dedicated to ACT that the suburban students have,

As a result, KSU’s recruiting and scholarship money is going to the suburban kids and the western Kansas kids are being left out and the will need to get more loans and or work long hours while going to school.

I’m not making this up, I was in many meetings listening first hand to the shift in focus. The current administration hired an east coast consulting firm who said this is what you should do. The justification is it will potentially help rankings. But it goes agains the land grant mission.

This is very relevant to the comments I see in this thread. People saying they are priced out of KSU and and going to Fort Hayes or many of the other more affordable schools. Unfortunately the administration is saying they don’t want you anyway, unless you’ll buy football tickets of course.

Hypeman
Posts: 3598
Joined: December 16th, 2018, 11:33 pm
Has thanked: 143 times
Been thanked: 176 times

Post by Hypeman » February 27th, 2020, 8:12 am

ToledoCat#2 wrote:
February 26th, 2020, 11:13 am
What is the obstacle for KSU having a portion of its curriculum dedicated to "tech/hand-on" technology degrees?

In essence, what can't K-State essentially have a junior college on its main campus.

I think KSU has recently hired 3 top administrators pretty much to boost enrollment, plus a plethora of "diversification" administrators.
The alternate to those expensive hirings was to make KSU degrees cost less.
+++++++==
Even I didn't know that you could get a degree in Queer Studies at my alma mater. What the hell kind of work will you do with that degree? Someone please explain and perhaps I'll retract my negative commentary.
There are not just three top administrators. In my college we now have new administrators and new assistant administrators to do the administrative work for the administrators. It’s as bad as athletics.

hilltopwildcat
Posts: 4191
Joined: September 4th, 2013, 12:52 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 8 times

Post by hilltopwildcat » February 27th, 2020, 8:30 am

Hype, what you're saying is very, very interesting. As you are the one making these claims and seem to know where this information is available, it would be much quicker if you just linked this instead of the rest of us having to run a search.

1 of our sons had a 31 on his ACT and qualified for half off tuition as an out of state student at KSU. 1 of our other sons got a 35 3 times and was going for 4 and we just said stop. The other son was in the 20's and hopelessly average, what a shame, not. No coaching or tutors though, a rural school education. And believe me, I was pretty upset at the way our school was and is still run.

I think there's an entirely different mindset between rural and urban. Rural kids are more into agriculture, hunting, mechanics, etc. We don't have the daily exposure to the variety of occupations in urban areas so other than being a doctor or lawyer, those careers aren't pushed. Until something is done to move or keep jobs in rural areas, I see no reason why anything will change. Some of those office and service jobs could be moved to rural areas and into existing facilities rather than the slow creep of suburban expansion. Speedy, consistent internet would be a good start but this is the latest boondoggle where "entrepreneurs" are snatching up millions and billions of government grant dollars to add service to places that already have high-speed internet.

And I started this thread on facilities.

Post Reply