Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PASSHE Institutions Merging

Collapse

Support The Site!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by ironmaniup View Post

    But the key to the merge is having one president for all three schools. The contracts give alot of authority to the university president, including retrenchment decisions, promotion, tenure, approving department chairs, course scheduling. Now much of this is typically done by a representative, but by contract, the triad president will have authority over which courses are offered at all three triads. At that point, the possibility for cost savings will be huge. This is much harder to do at individual universities. Passhe hates low enrolled classes, and sees eliminating these as the key to financial success. The other problem is the huge disparity in pay for older vs newer faculty. This is because of the contract, and is higher than most other universities. The merger will allow a school with locked in higher costs to manage this better. Finally there is the assignment of adjunct faculty, by contract there can be only a certain percentage. In the merged case, you can manipulate adjuncts much more efficiently, and maybe have whole departments at some schools be adjuncts.
    I believe the plan is to as often as possible eliminate the need to hire adjuncts by offering online instruction through the triad. Not sure how that's good for cost savings since its much cheaper to hire an adjunct than to pay a professor to increase their teaching load. As for the whole department as adjuncts, I think that could prove difficult to assemble the number of adjuncts necessary unless they all teach online. We may see that with departments that largely exist to fulfill general education courses and can't support a major like music or philosophy. But that will get them dinged in accreditation. RMU tried this with liberal arts classes since they don't do liberal arts and it caused a problem with Middle States.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fightingscot82 View Post

      I believe the plan is to as often as possible eliminate the need to hire adjuncts by offering online instruction through the triad. Not sure how that's good for cost savings since its much cheaper to hire an adjunct than to pay a professor to increase their teaching load. As for the whole department as adjuncts, I think that could prove difficult to assemble the number of adjuncts necessary unless they all teach online. We may see that with departments that largely exist to fulfill general education courses and can't support a major like music or philosophy. But that will get them dinged in accreditation. RMU tried this with liberal arts classes since they don't do liberal arts and it caused a problem with Middle States.
      Passhe is generally far from the point where mid states would complain about adjuncts. The two places adjuncts would help would be in classes that have low limited enrollment. Science labs, intro english composition, some intro or remedial courses in math, things that are better F2F. Certainly intro to music type courses can be offered on-line. But say something like an advanced business law course could be taught by an adjunct, with the special background needed, every once in a while. - and there are many cost savings things to look at, and different possible options. My point is that having a single president opens the door for whatever cost savings plans they might want to implement.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by ironmaniup View Post

        But the key to the merge is having one president for all three schools. The contracts give alot of authority to the university president, including retrenchment decisions, promotion, tenure, approving department chairs, course scheduling. Now much of this is typically done by a representative, but by contract, the triad president will have authority over which courses are offered at all three triads. At that point, the possibility for cost savings will be huge. This is much harder to do at individual universities. Passhe hates low enrolled classes, and sees eliminating these as the key to financial success. The other problem is the huge disparity in pay for older vs newer faculty. This is because of the contract, and is higher than most other universities. The merger will allow a school with locked in higher costs to manage this better. Finally there is the assignment of adjunct faculty, by contract there can be only a certain percentage. In the merged case, you can manipulate adjuncts much more efficiently, and maybe have whole departments at some schools be adjuncts.
        I agree that there are possibilities to save money...but there seems to be a large aversion to laying off Union members...be it faculty or staff. They typically pick off temp workers and adjunct which results in limited savings. And the favorite group for layoffs is...management.

        Some of these schools have programs that have tenured faculty teaching...with 6 students in classes. No way do those even break even.

        Also, over the pandemic, while campuses were essentially closed or operating with a skeleton crew...how many schools actually did layoffs? In many cases, the employees would have actually made more money on pandemic assistance...but they kept paying them.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fightingscot82 View Post

          I believe the plan is to as often as possible eliminate the need to hire adjuncts by offering online instruction through the triad. Not sure how that's good for cost savings since its much cheaper to hire an adjunct than to pay a professor to increase their teaching load. As for the whole department as adjuncts, I think that could prove difficult to assemble the number of adjuncts necessary unless they all teach online. We may see that with departments that largely exist to fulfill general education courses and can't support a major like music or philosophy. But that will get them dinged in accreditation. RMU tried this with liberal arts classes since they don't do liberal arts and it caused a problem with Middle States.
          Yes! And also as faculty retire, not fill their position and have one of the remaining faculty teach it.

          'In person' classes could mean having students sitting in physical class rooms at all 3 campuses with the faculty member on 1 campus connecting to the other 2 on Zoom. That lets you raise your class sizes...and if a faculty member retires, then no need to refill it. Of course, who knows if students like this?

          For years, as employees retired...these campuses wouldn't backfill positions. That's like saying, yeah we didn't need this position. In reality, some positions were needed. And you can only have another employee absorb so much work before quality goes down and employees burn out.

          We're seeing people leave now for reasons other than retirement. And it's generally the better employees.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by ironmaniup View Post

            Passhe is generally far from the point where mid states would complain about adjuncts. The two places adjuncts would help would be in classes that have low limited enrollment. Science labs, intro english composition, some intro or remedial courses in math, things that are better F2F. Certainly intro to music type courses can be offered on-line. But say something like an advanced business law course could be taught by an adjunct, with the special background needed, every once in a while. - and there are many cost savings things to look at, and different possible options. My point is that having a single president opens the door for whatever cost savings plans they might want to implement.
            Lots of schools issued retrenchment letters. Then, it comes to the point where they can do layoffs...and they lay off adjuncts. It's just politically easier to sell laying off an adjunct faculty member than a full union faculty member. It's as simple as that. Plus, then you become on an adversarial footing with the Union where the Union doesn't care about adjuncts as much.

            In general, these schools seem to take the easy way out over and over.

            You (and I) look at it like: What's the optimal way to do this? And yes...it makes no sense to pay a faculty member $110k + benefits to teach Intro Class 101. That could be taught by an adjunct for $4k. But, that's not how it works sometimes.

            As for management, I believe the initial plan is to keep Cabinets as is for the next year. I'm curious to see if they start eliminating vice president positions. I've heard that the plan is to lose people through attrition. Which means, retire when you feel like it or else you still have a job.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by complaint_hopeful View Post

              Lots of schools issued retrenchment letters. Then, it comes to the point where they can do layoffs...and they lay off adjuncts. It's just politically easier to sell laying off an adjunct faculty member than a full union faculty member. It's as simple as that. Plus, then you become on an adversarial footing with the Union where the Union doesn't care about adjuncts as much.

              In general, these schools seem to take the easy way out over and over.

              You (and I) look at it like: What's the optimal way to do this? And yes...it makes no sense to pay a faculty member $110k + benefits to teach Intro Class 101. That could be taught by an adjunct for $4k. But, that's not how it works sometimes.

              As for management, I believe the initial plan is to keep Cabinets as is for the next year. I'm curious to see if they start eliminating vice president positions. I've heard that the plan is to lose people through attrition. Which means, retire when you feel like it or else you still have a job.
              They released the plan last week or the week before. Fortunately its rare to become a dean, provost, or VP when you've got a lot of gas left in the tank. The Edinboro provost and one other are near retirement. I don't think that leaves the job for the remaining provost. There will be six academic schools and that's where we'll start seeing some reshuffling; the same will happen with academic departments. I don't think they'll lay off 2/3 of a department but they'll take department chair from 2/3 of the redundant departments.

              For non-academic management, they're determining how this will work. Administrative divisions will be combined and staffing will be determined by what is needed "on the ground" and specific to one campus (athletics, alumni relations, etc) and what can be distributed among the three (financial aid, purchasing, human resources, etc).

              Comment


              • Originally posted by complaint_hopeful View Post
                Cheyney University will erase unpaid student bills since the start of the pandemic

                Cheyney University will erase unpaid student bills since the start of the pandemic - pennlive.com
                Fools are they who worked hard to repay their financial obligations.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Horror Child View Post

                  Fools are they who worked hard to repay their financial obligations.
                  Wonder if Cheyney has paid back the money they borrowed from the PASSHE to stay open? Also, if Cheyney has "extra" money, shouldn't the PASSHE consider cutting their budget to them and provide those excess dollars to other schools that might be struggling more?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by boatcapt View Post

                    Wonder if Cheyney has paid back the money they borrowed from the PASSHE to stay open? Also, if Cheyney has "extra" money, shouldn't the PASSHE consider cutting their budget to them and provide those excess dollars to other schools that might be struggling more?
                    The article explains that this was done with American Recovery Act funds. Paying student balances is an approved use assuming that some students (or families) couldn't work as planned due to pandemic business closures. Cheyney in essence is paying themselves with free federal money. A lot of schools did this. Similarly, last spring some schools just added funds to every student's balance equally but the problem was that it triggered refunds for a lot of students who didn't need it when that money had it been used equitably could have made a greater impact on students who needed it. A lot of articles are misrepresenting where the money is going on these stories - they're paying off balances due to the university not loans students took out to pay the university.

                    At schools with lower retention, this is huge because unpaid balances are the #1 reason students leave college. A lot of them don't have family members with credit to sign off on loans or even have the family tax information to apply. Lending is strange - you can buy houses and cars with a job offer letter (future potential) but can't get student loans with the academic equivalent (high grades & SAT/ACT). Additionally, Recovery Act money for universities was targeted the same way as it was for families. There was a formula that rewarded schools for having more students from lower family incomes. Cheyney has the highest percentage of students from lower incomes than any college or university in the state so they probably received a decent amount relative to their annual budget, but that also plugged a hole they've had in collecting money due.

                    The Cheyney loans from PASSHE were forgiven per the terms (they had to have a balanced budget for so many years).
                    Last edited by Fightingscot82; 08-05-2021, 01:54 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fightingscot82 View Post

                      The article explains that this was done with American Recovery Act funds. Paying student balances is an approved use assuming that some students (or families) couldn't work as planned due to pandemic business closures. Cheyney in essence is paying themselves with free federal money. A lot of schools did this. Similarly, last spring some schools just added funds to every student's balance equally but the problem was that it triggered refunds for a lot of students who didn't need it when that money had it been used equitably could have made a greater impact on students who needed it. A lot of articles are misrepresenting where the money is going on these stories - they're paying off balances due to the university not loans students took out to pay the university.

                      At schools with lower retention, this is huge because unpaid balances are the #1 reason students leave college. A lot of them don't have family members with credit to sign off on loans or even have the family tax information to apply. Lending is strange - you can buy houses and cars with a job offer letter (future potential) but can't get student loans with the academic equivalent (high grades & SAT/ACT). Additionally, Recovery Act money for universities was targeted the same way as it was for families. There was a formula that rewarded schools for having more students from lower family incomes. Cheyney has the highest percentage of students from lower incomes than any college or university in the state so they probably received a decent amount relative to their annual budget, but that also plugged a hole they've had in collecting money due.

                      The Cheyney loans from PASSHE were forgiven per the terms (they had to have a balanced budget for so many years).
                      Due to the university from whom?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Bart View Post
                        "In all, student housing projects across the state owned universities added about a $1.6 billion dollars in debt"

                        https://triblive.com/local/regional/...-universities/

                        No comment from the IUP guy who mocked schools that didn't go into massive debt and overbuilt residence halls.

                        I mean, who could have seen this coming, except anyone who looked at demographic records.
                        State records show births in Pennsylvania, from which the universities draw 80% to 90% of their students, fell 15% between 1990 and 2000.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Horror Child View Post

                          Due to the university from whom?
                          Students.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Horror Child View Post

                            No comment from the IUP guy who mocked schools that didn't go into massive debt and overbuilt residence halls.

                            I mean, who could have seen this coming, except anyone who looked at demographic records.
                            Yep. And this generation of student doesn't seem to care about living in the nicest housing. I mean maybe if it went back to the poor housing that some of these campuses had 20 years ago, it would matter. I think they just come to expect a certain standard...but it doesn't sway them in a decision.

                            This generation of student doesn't really like to leave their dorm room for social events in general. They are absorbed into their phone and watching streaming services online. So campuses built these big arenas and new student unions, but kids stay in their room mostly and don't like to leave it. Probably room service where food was delivered would be more popular.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fightingscot82 View Post

                              Students.
                              What's the misrepresentation in the story?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by complaint_hopeful View Post

                                Yep. And this generation of student doesn't seem to care about living in the nicest housing. I mean maybe if it went back to the poor housing that some of these campuses had 20 years ago, it would matter. I think they just come to expect a certain standard...but it doesn't sway them in a decision.

                                This generation of student doesn't really like to leave their dorm room for social events in general. They are absorbed into their phone and watching streaming services online. So campuses built these big arenas and new student unions, but kids stay in their room mostly and don't like to leave it. Probably room service where food was delivered would be more popular.
                                I wonder what percentage of currently enrolled, dorm living students would opt to take a class(es) on-line vice having to get up, leave their room and walk ALL the way across campus to attend an in person class?

                                Comment

                                Ad3

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X