UNC capital needs underfunded

[PonsterM]

The PTB in NC continue their quest to remake UNC via the power of the purse:

https://amp.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article317352595.html

 

[kik84]

Didn't they also deny our request for an engineering school a while back, because they didn't want us competing with State's and ECU's?

 

[oldwell]

Didn't they also deny our request for an engineering school a while back, because they didn't want us competing with State's and ECU's?

Yeah but it seems like Carolina is going to focus on other engineering-adjacent, tech disciplines instead.

They started the new Applied Sciences program and Data Science program.

I think that makes sense to offer some unique programs that can be versatile in their uses.

 

[unctarheel1984]

Underfunded? What more do we need to build that we aren’t building? Focus on needs, not wants. Construction on the UNC campus is continuous and omnipresent. Maybe it’s more that we have been using alternate sources of funding rather than getting our “fair share” of state tax dollars from the NCGA we spit on at every turn.

 

[mpaer]

Underfunded? What more do we need to build that we aren’t building? Focus on needs, not wants. Construction on the UNC campus is continuous and omnipresent. Maybe it’s more that we have been using alternate sources of funding rather than getting our “fair share” of state tax dollars from the NCGA we spit on at every turn.

The point of this post was "realtively speaking"
Campuses with their dozens of buildings -some very old-always need Capital improvements
The graph above clearly shows we are not getting our fair share
And if you think the NCGA is nice to us-you need to get educated

 

[unctarheel1984]

Two things -
1. The graph doesn’t show UNC is not adequately addressing its capital needs. It tracks only one funding source.
2. Perhaps you missed the point I made about the NCGA. The NCGA is as openly hostile toward UNC-CH as UNC-CH is openly hostile (and disdainful) toward the NCGA. We insist at every turn to publicly call the NCGA a bunch of ignorant political hacks who undermine higher education and then we wonder why the NCGA isn’t nicer to us. Please note I am not addressing the truth of “our side”, only the very real political ramifications of our actions.

 

[mpaer]

Two things -
1. The graph doesn’t show UNC is not adequately addressing its capital needs. It tracks only one funding source.
2. Perhaps you missed the point I made about the NCGA. The NCGA is as openly hostile toward UNC-CH as UNC-CH is openly hostile (and disdainful) toward the NCGA. We insist at every turn to publicly call the NCGA a bunch of ignorant political hacks who undermine higher education and then we wonder why the NCGA isn’t nicer to us. Please note I am not addressing the truth of “our side”, only the very real political ramifications of our actions.

Thanks for the discussion Appreciate your comments

 

[unctarheel1984]

Thanks for the discussion Appreciate your comments

And to you as well, sir.

 

[PonsterM]

Two things -
1. The graph doesn’t show UNC is not adequately addressing its capital needs. It tracks only one funding source.
2. Perhaps you missed the point I made about the NCGA. The NCGA is as openly hostile toward UNC-CH as UNC-CH is openly hostile (and disdainful) toward the NCGA. We insist at every turn to publicly call the NCGA a bunch of ignorant political hacks who undermine higher education and then we wonder why the NCGA isn’t nicer to us. Please note I am not addressing the truth of “our side”, only the very real political ramifications of our actions.

If the NCGA is so upset by a few op-eds by one law professor that they punish the university's funding for it, then they are small, petty people.

 

[UNCBullMarket]

I wonder if the NCGA is also factoring in that UNC gets a LOT more money than the other schools from other sources of private funding (Endowments/Foundations), and is just trying to keep the entire system viable, as everyone can't go to UNC. It's easy to throw stones from a keyboard (or as a journalist with an agenda to push) and cherry pick data to tell the version of the story you want others to hear.

All I'm saying is maybe look at thing a little more open mindedly. UNC is doing pretty damn well compared to most....keeping the smaller affiliate institutions viable is really crucial to the future of higher education for our state. They do not have the private support that UNC is very fortunate to benefit from.

Not everyone is out to just burn everything to the ground...there are a lot of things to consider other than just assuming they are out to screw UNC over.

 

[mpaer]

I wonder if the NCGA is also factoring in that UNC gets a LOT more money than the other schools from other sources of private funding (Endowments/Foundations), and is just trying to keep the entire system viable, as everyone can't go to UNC. It's easy to throw stones from a keyboard (or as a journalist with an agenda to push) and cherry pick data to tell the version of the story you want others to hear.

All I'm saying is maybe look at thing a little more open mindedly. UNC is doing pretty damn well compared to most....keeping the smaller affiliate institutions viable is really crucial to the future of higher education for our state. They do not have the private support that UNC is very fortunate to benefit from.

Not everyone is out to just burn everything to the ground...there are a lot of things to consider other than just assuming they are out to screw UNC over.

There is certainly that to consider
We will see soon.They either fund expansion or they don't

 

[unctarheel1984]

If the NCGA is so upset by a few op-eds by one law professor that they punish the university's funding for it, then they are small, petty people.

Do you believe they are small, petty people?

 

[PonsterM]

Do you believe they are small, petty people?

What does it matter what I believe? If they're short changing us because they think UNC is too liberal or because a law professor wrote some op-eds, then that action is small and petty.

 

[PonsterM]

I wonder if the NCGA is also factoring in that UNC gets a LOT more money than the other schools from other sources of private funding (Endowments/Foundations), and is just trying to keep the entire system viable, as everyone can't go to UNC. It's easy to throw stones from a keyboard (or as a journalist with an agenda to push) and cherry pick data to tell the version of the story you want others to hear.

All I'm saying is maybe look at thing a little more open mindedly. UNC is doing pretty damn well compared to most....keeping the smaller affiliate institutions viable is really crucial to the future of higher education for our state. They do not have the private support that UNC is very fortunate to benefit from.

Not everyone is out to just burn everything to the ground...there are a lot of things to consider other than just assuming they are out to screw UNC over.

That would be fair enough except that in the article, Berger's former chief of staff is quoted as saying that this is about politics.

 

[unctarheel1984]

What does it matter what I believe? If they're short changing us because they think UNC is too liberal or because a law professor wrote some op-eds, then that action is small and petty.

Do you believe only person has made public derogatory statements regarding the NCGA?

 

[PonsterM]

Do you believe only person has made public derogatory statements regarding the NCGA?

Who cares if it's one person or ten or a thousand? You don't underfund your flagship university out of spite or revenge. And you don't make university funding dependant on the faculty being sufficient obedient and deferential to politicians. Do you disagree?

 

[unctarheel1984]

Your utopia doesn’t exist. This is reality. So, let’s assume you are absolutely correct and the NCGA is small and petty. Now how do we best approach a group of small, petty politicians to get the funding we want?

 

[PonsterM]

Your utopia doesn’t exist. This is reality. So, let’s assume you are absolutely correct and the NCGA is small and petty. Now how do we best approach a group of small, petty politicians to get the funding we want?

Obviously, we vote them out of office, but they've made sure that that's very very difficult to do. Also, I'm not sure the average NC voter cares since they keep voting for the people doing this. I expect there are plenty of voters in NC who would be more than happy to see the professors at UNC subjected to political purity and loyalty tests.

But you're changing the subject. Or you're at least agreeing with me that they are small and petty and doing something inappropriate.

And you're wrong about what I'm arguing for not existing. This state has a very long history of not making university funding dependent upon political loyalty tests.

Alternatively, we bribe them. If they're corrupt, then we play the game or not get what we want.

Alternatively, we continue to move towards private donations and away from being dependant on a corrupt state.

 

[unctarheel1984]

Yes, we play the game until we can change the game which will take years, maybe a decade. Poking the bear is not playing the game. I have to bite my tongue daily.

Edit: a good discussion. Thank you.

 

[FreeLunch]

I expect there are plenty of voters in NC who would be more than happy to see the professors at UNC subjected to political purity and loyalty tests; but perhaps with a different slant from the political purity and loyalty tests they've subjected to over the last 40 or 50 years.

FIFY.

 

[PonsterM]

FIFY.

Get out of here with that. This state does not have a long history of making university funding dependent upon political loyalty and purity tests. It's one thing for a bunch of professors with similar political views to collect in the university together. It has never been surprising that sociology professors tend to be liberal and business professors tend to be conservative. Or for psychiatry professors to mostly be liberal and surgery professors to mostly be conservative. It's another thing entirely for politicians to punish the university via the power of the purse. Surely you see the difference.

 

[FreeLunch]

Get out of here with that. This state does not have a long history of making university funding dependent upon political loyalty and purity tests. It's one thing for a bunch of professors with similar political views to collect in the university together. It has never been surprising that sociology professors tend to be liberal and business professors tend to be conservative. Or for psychiatry professors to mostly be liberal and surgery professors to mostly be conservative. It's another thing entirely for politicians to punish the university via the power of the purse. Surely you see the difference.

I like this.

We're supposed to believe this is all some unintentional, benign outcome ? There's nothing more to it than people like to hang out with others with similar stripes.

Probably the main difference between state governments trying to impose some political loyalty test on university professors versus the faculty doing this by themselves is that state governments would likely be a lot less effective than what university faculties have accomplished towards achieving more uniform ideology.

 

[PonsterM]

I like this.

We're supposed to believe this is all some unintentional, benign outcome ? There's nothing more to it than people like to hang out with others with similar stripes.

Probably the main difference between state governments trying to impose some political loyalty test on university professors versus the faculty doing this by themselves is that state governments would likely be a lot less effective than what university faculties have accomplished towards achieving more uniform ideology.


View attachment 1459001

Again, not a surprise that professors have gravitated towards the party that prioritizes education, government spending, research spending, expertise, etc. Conservatives have been openly hostile to higher education, research spending, and government expertise over the last decade or more. When Trump et al are hollowing out the CDC, adding political purity tests to research funding, etc., is it any wonder that more professors have become liberal over the last decade? Look at your chart. The big jumps have happened in the last 20 years.

Also, the fact that there are more liberals in academics these days is very, very different than conservatives not being allowed in academia, or universities being punished financially because of something a conservative says. In your own chart, even after the last decade of conservative hostility to research funding, 25% of professors are middle of the road or conservative.

The bigger point, though, is that if you want there to be more conservatives in higher education, you find ways to positively incentivize that, as UNC has done with its civics center. What you DON'T do is make it so that UNC professors have to censor what they say, what they teach, what they study, the papers they publish, the grant money they go after, etc. because they're afraid that if they say the wrong thing, the legislature will punish the university as a whole by lowering its funding. Surely... SURELY... you don't think UNC professors should have to self-censor like that? The role of government here is to make sure that all voices are allowed at UNC. If a conservative professor thinks their career has been affected by their political views, they can sue the university for that. That's always been possible.

It is not the role of government, however, to punish the university as a whole because some professors said things the legislature didn't like. I have to imagine you agree with that.

 

[kik84]

Two things -
1. The graph doesn’t show UNC is not adequately addressing its capital needs. It tracks only one funding source.
2. Perhaps you missed the point I made about the NCGA. The NCGA is as openly hostile toward UNC-CH as UNC-CH is openly hostile (and disdainful) toward the NCGA. We insist at every turn to publicly call the NCGA a bunch of ignorant political hacks who undermine higher education and then we wonder why the NCGA isn’t nicer to us. Please note I am not addressing the truth of “our side”, only the very real political ramifications of our actions.

As well, regarding the NCGA, when you're a state university that has been found to have engaged in a discriminatory admissions policy for decades, don't expect that state's legislative body to go out of its way to be accommodative.