VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, [7], 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 09/ 3/15 2:27:36pm Thu
Author: Steve
Subject: Re: That contentious open faculty letter of 3 years ago
In reply to: Oak Dr. 's message, "Re: That contentious open faculty letter of 3 years ago" on 09/ 3/15 12:33:14pm Thu

I don't believe we have a problem as such. What we do have is a letter from a set of faculty 3 years ago explaining their concerns, most likely as a means of getting enough attention to stimulate debate. They succeeded.

This issue remains on peoples' minds, not surprisingly, despite the heightened levels of attentiom and quality delivered by Vicky Chun and her entire team. To me that counts for a lot because I have confidence that she "gets" what makes Colgate special, unique and a more successful destination for recruits and new department hires. Their profiles, in my estimation, as more impressive than ever.

I seldom concern myself with questions about Pandora's box. If Lexi was compelled for whatever reason to express her views, well, they were meant to be circulated to the Colgate community. So I did my part in doing so.

We all might as well keep our eyes and ears open to these types of push-pull discussions so we can remain current and involved. After all, we are all engaged as supporters of Colgate athletics.

Go 'gate!

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> [> Re: That contentious open faculty letter of 3 years ago -- Steve, 09/11/15 12:42:10pm Fri

Well, it seems as if it was just as well that I reintroduced that letter from some faculty in the context of Lexi's recent response.

Why? The letter is part of a new Bloomberg video about the Class of 1965 Arena and the direction of spending on athletics at elite colleges.

What the video doesn't say is that Colgate is 52nd on the list of all US 4 year colleges and universities on cost, Colgate invested over $120 million in Ho, Case, Lathrop and the new career center in the past 10 years while the spend on athletics capital projects about $45 million on Trudy and the arena- mainly or entirely donor funded.

Then there are the USN&WR, Princeton Review and Kiplinger's rankings and findings that show Colgate is on a roll. It goes without saying, doesn't it, that alumni, parent and other donors know the importance, impact and value of their donations, including $178 million for financial aid in the last capital campaign.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-09-10/the-athletics-arms-race-at-elite-colleges

I hope you will agree that "no publicity is bad publicity". The video is of high quality and shows off the campus. Both Mike Martin and Murray Decock presented their views well. Not sure about the Smith College sports economist's message, though.

Go 'gate!


[ Edit | View ]


[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.