Wednesday, December 04, 2002Missing the PointWith the exception of the Stan Horowitz/Andrew Grossman posting tandem, I fear you guys are not focusing on the important issue about the College budget. Empirically, there is no reason to cut any program, PC or not, useful or not. Whatever the exact size of the endowment, it is more than it was in 1999, and at least several multiples of what it was in 1990. Tuition has increased above the rate of inflation, while labor costs have not kept pace as far as I know. Certainly the past year has witnessed no increases in labor costs, fixed operating expenses, or similar expenditure problems. And the College admits to no major decrease in alumni giving. So the College has a far larger endowment, and at worst the same annual revenue to expenditure ratio that it had in 1990, yet is cutting programs. In other words, it is willing to sacrifice those programs, academic, athletic, or otherwise, to maintain the endowment. The question you should be asking isn't what programs could be cut more painlessly, but why any programs should be cut at all. Posted by Alexander at 11:08 PM Comments Post a Comment (we enforce our comments policy) |
Dartlog ToolsHanover NewsDartmouth LinksNota BeneArticles of note—culled from the Internet by TDR. Nothing thrills a classical music crowd more than a new piece of music that doesn't make them physically ill. "Irony, it turns out, does cross the Hudson River." You don't say. Child rape, pt. II. Moral Hypocrisy What's worse: killing someone, or raping a child? Did Aristotle steal his works from the Egyptians? A theory rebutted. Advertisement  Dartmouth BlogsFavorites
Advertisement |
|
Copyright © 1996-2008 The Dartmouth Review |
|