[from Bob's recent Spamogram]*


But Walking the Talk?

We Don't Do No Stinking Walking!

[*So if this claim is true, Bob, why is the average debt at graduation for our students $25 K -the highest of our supposed aspirational peers? And our six year graduation rate 60% - for shame...]

From the Daily:

Bruininks, railing against Pawlenty’s goal to cap tuition increases at state schools this session, said tuition increases would be on the table, but would be, “the last thing on the list” of possible revenue sources for the University.

“Anyone in higher education who thinks they’re going to solve this budget problem with high tuition rates is whistling in the wind,” he [Bruininks] said. “I don’t think it’s responsible and it’s not the position I would take at this time.”

[The key weasel words here are: "at this time." see: From the Department of Better Late Than Never]

“We will do everything possible to keep this burden as low as possible on students,” Bruininks said. “We’ll do everything we can to protect the jobs of our employees.”

State funds make up 70 percent of funding for the University, Bruininks said. It accounts for more than three quarters of total spending on both student services and faculty compensation.

[Hmmm, 70%? The number quoted for the percent of state support seems to be a function of which U of M administrator is doing the talking...]

“[Bruininks] understands the responsibility of the University to the Bell Museum, and our stewardship of the state institution and that’s why we are back with this request again,” [VP Kathleen] O’Brien said.

[WHAT?]

As commenters pointed out:

Administration logic: x = not x

Don't these statements seem even a little contradictory?

“We will do everything possible to keep this burden as low as possible on students,” Bruininks said. “We’ll do everything we can to protect the jobs of our employees.”

“[Bruininks] understands the responsibility of the University to the Bell Museum, and our stewardship of the state institution and that’s why we are back with this request [a new Bell museum building] again,” O’Brien said.

and:

I'd also ask about all the reports this century detailing how the portion of true per-credit costs that the state picks up, reportedly now less than 25% (down from close to 50% a generation ago), can be reconciled against the statement here that the state, and tuition, provides 70% of funding for the U?

I'd assume this means that the state is picking up roughly 20%+ of costs that would otherwise be part of a higher tuition, for everybody; and furthermore that state grants to individual students based on need inflate that 20-25% figure up to a whopping 70%? Can that be possible?

You'd have to have the the large majority of students receiving a large majority of their tuition funding from the state in order to have the state directly funding 70% when tuition costs in general are only picked up to the tune of 20-25%. So say the math.

What am I missing here?