<p>Update on cost cutting at Dartmouth:</p>
<p>[Strategic</a> Budget Reduction and Investment Update - April 1, 2010](<a href=“http://budget.dartmouth.edu/communications/1april2010-foltkadish.html]Strategic”>http://budget.dartmouth.edu/communications/1april2010-foltkadish.html)</p>
<p>Freezing faculty and eliminating vacant positions is not good for maintaining faculty quality. Dartmouth’s quality will be under severe pressure.</p>
<p>Looks like Dartmouth is on its way…</p>
<p>I didn’t see that many position cuts…</p>
<p>I keep reading these Dartmouth budget-cutting “plans” and it always sounds like buzzwords to me. I mean, who’s kidding who, there aren’t millions of dollars in savings from “more efficient purchasing”. That sounds like an idea for “budget cutting” in Washington.</p>
<p>Most schools have already finalized hard cuts for the next few years. They past the buzzword stage a year ago.</p>
<p>Other than laying off a lot of staff, I can’t really put my finger on any hard cuts at Dartmouth. Maybe they should cut the budget for budget-cutting consultants?</p>
<p>Despite saying that he wanted to make the cuts decisively and move forward, Kim has now cut about 10% of the workforce at Dartmouth, in dribs and drabs over the last year. Who knows what the real targets are?</p>
<p>Earlier in this thread (actually it was in the fall) I had posted a hypothetical query: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I now have a specific question: My daughter is considering admissions offers from: Yale, Princeton, Columbia and Northwestern. Her favorite is Yale. </p>
<p>Is any of these colleges in so much trouble that you guys would recommend not matriculating to it? Is one of these colleges in much better (or much worse) financial condition than the others?</p>
<p>I don’t know about Northwestern specifically, but in general, the answer to your questions are “no” and “no”.</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure that both Yale and Princeton will be able to muddle through. Columbia and Northwestern were never in that league, financially.</p>
<p>[Pension</a> Funds Fail to Reap Rewards in Private Equity - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/03/business/03equity.html?dbk]Pension”>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/03/business/03equity.html?dbk)</p>
<p>Pretty much debunks the myth that alternative investments produce big returns. The only people who get big returns are the guys running these things. The Pension and Endowment people are howling now about the 2% management fee they all agreed to that is bleeding much needed cash. Problem is why did these endowment/pension people agree to pay this fee in the first place-they knew what they were getting themselves into.</p>
<p>Ponzi scheme operators always make big returns, don’t they? This whole private equity boom was a leveraged ponzi scheme built on the twin pillars of easy credit (for loading companies down with debt) and and endless supply of greater fools to buy the gutted companies and provide exit strategies.</p>
<p>[Jim</a> Cramer On IPOs: PE Backer Is ‘Gigantic Red Flag’ - Private Equity Beat - WSJ](<a href=“http://blogs.wsj.com/privateequity/2010/04/02/jim-cramer-on-ipos-pe-backer-is-gigantic-red-flag/]Jim”>http://blogs.wsj.com/privateequity/2010/04/02/jim-cramer-on-ipos-pe-backer-is-gigantic-red-flag/)</p>
<p>Interest, seems that Jim Cramer would very much agree with you</p>
<p>[California</a> pension funds face huge shortfall | Economy | Reuters](<a href=“Reuters | Breaking International News & Views”>Reuters | Breaking International News & Views)</p>
<p>Interesting study done by Stanford University on the California pension fund. Note that they recommend that CALPERS stop moving so much money to risky alternative investments and increase the amount of fixed income investments. I’m wondering why Stanford hasn’t brought Stanford in to make recommendations on their own Endowment that is significantly more dependent on alternative investments than Calpers.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Harvard, Stanford, and Dartmouth too. They will come through a little leaner, but for all the hand-wringing we do on this thread I bet pretty much all the top line colleges that took big hits to their endowments will weather the storm.</p>
<p>I hate the fees. And I’m not thrilled with California’s pension problems. I have lots of hate in me today. :)</p>
<p>VicariousParent…congrats to your daughter. Don’t worry about those schools.</p>
<p>It’s because of Mr. Ponsi and Madoff and the Too-Big-To-Fail-FI’s that we will see greater regulations. The small people, who don’t know better, is not the reason we will have greater Government oversight. </p>
<p>Calpers, Endowments, Big losers in this recession, will demand government regs.</p>
<p>That has been the history of the USA.</p>
<p>I guess I’m a bit more negative on what some of these schools will face. I know right now they are doing all they can to not cut professors or programs in fear of taking a reputational hit but I think for some the gap between what they are able to cut without cutting meat and the amount they will need to cut once the dust is settled on the value of their endowments will be too wide.</p>
<p>^^Oh, they may have to cut a few profs and/or programs. That’s all part of “muddling through” and coming out leaner. But they will minimize the academic cuts and keep intact the programs that are most valuable to them and their reputations. </p>
<p>And just because they cut some modest number of profs doesn’t mean they’ve lost their entire academic standing. If Harvard abolished say its Folklore and Mythology department it would be a shame but it would still be Harvard. It wouldn’t suddenly turn into Cal State Bakersfield because it cut one or two obscure academic departments. </p>
<p>Heck, so save money and cut expenses after the hurricane disaster, Tulane did away with its Engineering program of all things. That’s a mainline program that I’m sure it really hurt its reputation to cut, but it came out of that painful retrenchment still operating and still Tulane.</p>
<p>vicariousparent, what wonderful results for your daughter!
All the schools she is contemplating have resources almost beyond comprehension. The wringing of hands on this thread is foolish worrying about wealthy schools, with money in the bank in terms of their walking alumni that surpass even their endowments. If push came to shove, the well is almost bottomless.</p>
<p>From what I gather, colleges are not cutting out whole programs. They’re not replacing profs who leave or who retire; they’ve instituted hiring freezes and are limiting or no longer inviting visiting professors to substitute for faculty when they go on sabbatical (sabbaticals may also be rethought). What it does is to leave gaps in departmental offerings. Libraries are taking a huge hit and university presses have also lost a lot of financial support. I don’t know if that’s going to be enough to stanch the flow of red ink.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It doesn’t alter the point at all, but I like to make sure things are correctly presented. Tulane kept both Chemical and Biomedical Engineering. They did eliminate the other engineering disciplines.</p>
<p>^^Thanks for the clarification. And I think we agree that despite its very painful and substantial cuts, Tulane is still Tulane. It hasn’t turned into the equivalent of a four year community college.</p>