DartLog.net

Wednesday, December 04, 2002

Motivated and organized:  The "Support Dartmouth Aquatics" Web site
--posted by alex talcott 12:47 AM

Be on the lookout:  A piece on this matter will be in the Boston Globe today (12/4).
--posted by alex talcott 12:23 AM

Tuesday, December 03, 2002

RE: UGA salaries:  My only problem with cutting UGA salaries is that they are comparatively low to other schools. In the same way some of the cuts are embarrassing, it's embarrassing that schools like Cornell and Vassar provide RAs with full room and board in addition to a stipend.

Meanwhile, I was a proud (?) overpaid UGA for two terms last year. But I was shafted--I had a roommate and one of the smallest doubles on campus...in one of the Tree Houses.

Btw, UGAs who return for a new year of work get a $1100/term. Also, the personal programming budget is not fixed at $100; on my staff in the River cluster you could pretty much get the money you requested.
--posted by alex talcott 9:13 PM

Double Standard:  Obviously there are countless non-essential programs that should be cut. Doing so will not, however, free monies then to be applied to programs fundamental to education. Much of the problem is rooted in the highly-restricted fashion the college has been soliciting donations. If my memory serves me correctly, something like 70-80% of the endowment monies are restricted-use, as are the incomes from such donations; as such, cutting the programs they support would have no effect on the general situation other than ridding us of lesser absurdities. Bizarrely, the college generally honors the intent of living donors, while it apparently harbors no reservations over misappropriating funds left by dead donors.


--posted by Byron Fuller 8:54 PM

Contest:  How about cutting some of the UGA salaries? For three terms a year, the College employs 150 UGAs at $1000 per term, plus about $100 for personal programming. Then there are about 10 UGAs in the summer making $500. That's about $500000 a year, plus or minus a few thousand, depending on the exact amount they receive for their personal programming. Add to this at least 7 full-time community directors, plus the cluster programming budgets. For example, the "Rock the River" party (I may be slightly off on the name) cost at least $10000. This, or course, does not include the cost of training UGAs, and I may have omitted some grad student positions.

Obviously there are tons of students who would be more than willing to be UGAs for much less. Many would do it just for the room. And let's be honest, how much work do UGAs really do? Emmett?
--posted by Alston Ramsay 5:56 PM

Ask Milton Friedman...and a contest:  Stan Horowitz writes in about the College's recent budget pruning:

Here are the facts about the Dartmouth budget crisis as I understand them:

- On June 30, 1999 the endowment was worth $1.7 billion.
- On June 30, 2001 it was worth $2.4 billion.
- Assuming a 5% loss over the next year (which I think the administration has cited), it was $2.3 billion on June 30, 2002.

- So, between 1999 and 2002 the endowment grew by 34%. Over the same period the higher education cost index grew by about 15%. Letís be clear about this. In 2002 there is markedly more money available than there was in 1999.

- In 1999 nobody was talking about closing libraries or eliminating sports teams.

Buy the swim team:  No joke.
--posted by alex talcott 12:04 AM

Monday, December 02, 2002

Idiot Watch:  Sacre bleu!
--posted by Emmett Hogan 5:02 PM

Mon idÈe fixe:  Here is what S & S posted on the shooting:

11/07/02
9:41 a.m.
Weapon Offense:
The Department of Safety and Security received a report that a bullet hole had been found in a window in room 205 11 Rope Ferry Road. Safety and Security and the Hanover Police are investigating the case.

Thursday, November 28, 2002

Wednesday, November 27, 2002

2 Things:  1. Here's what disturbs me about the swim team debacle, and it really has nothing to do with the swim team itself:
Why on earth is there rioting and class council blitzs for this one when there wasn't anything for the library announcements? While I like to see students (finally) getting upset over the budget, the priorities are still screwy. I'm with Andrew that the first goal of budget cuts should be to maintain our academic infrastructure at top-notch, even if that involves cutting a team or two. But none of these teams should be axed before the Collis projects and some of the various deans are eliminated (I'd also recommend severely curtailing the amount of money flowing into the UGA program). Academics should be the absolute priority, but no one was upset enough to protest over the libraries, and I never saw the class council weigh in. I suppose the fact that specific library cuts have not been announced could have some effect, but still...

2. This is regarding Rollo's "slippery slope" comment about my editorial. First off, I don't think slippery slope arguments are "stupid." If you truly do Rollo, then you should have no qualms accepting a speech code which restricts only the most vile expressions of speech. You also wouldn't have a problem accepting just a couple more restrictions on gun rights, even if they were very very tiny. Afterall, if there's not a slippery slope, then what is just one more law affecting only a few people's guns, especially if it doesn't affect law-abiding citizens? I write this knowing full well it is bound to start a debate.

But more importantly, I don't think I was outlining a "slippery slope" issue. It is more like a cliff. Either you invest concentrating on the social implications of stocks, or you invest looking to generate the greatest return, unhindered by other thoughts. "Moral" investing is not possible with something like Dartmouth's endowment because it would have to be representative of 4000+ students' views, not just the individual investor. I'm not saying that tobacco divestment is the first step and could be taken further. I'm saying it would be taken further (yes I'm aware of the South Africa divestment; no I don't know all the details or why there weren't immediately calls for other divestment schemes), but even if it weren't, it would still affect the way we invest money. Maybe I'm being obtuse, but this would force our brokers to do research on all the social issues related to any company before investing. For instance, they would be loathe to make some long-term investments if they knew they might have to sell them off before they reached fruition because someone might cry foul. They would have to take the tobacco divestment into account as an example of what can happen with the slightest bit of controversy on our fair campus. There is no doubt in my mind that keeping an eye towards these things would handicap their ability to invest wisely and quickly (clearly, the last couple years were not the best examples of investing, but a 45% return for one year ain't too shabby). It would also divert tremendous research manpower.

There are a few more reasons why divesting is a bad idea. First, before any scheme is considered, the College would have to make all its stock ownings public, which they have been loathe to do. Next, the issue of who decides which stocks are bad ones is very unsettling. What if it were a representative from each student group? Elections would be just as bad. But this decision would come back to the Board eventually, and I prefer they don't spend their meetings squabbling over whether or not business involvement in China is grounds for dismissal. Given how many stocks we are bound to own, this alone would takes weeks or months to sift through, and I sincerely hope the trustees have better things to do. I had a couple others I think, but I'm tired now. Happy Thanksgiving all.
--posted by Alston Ramsay 3:15 AM

All contents © 2002 The Hanover Review, inc.