2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

Um.. I think it's always been that way.  And it's that way with every university in the country.  All higher ed folks are in the same talent pool.  We pay good money to get good people.  It isn't like putting a want ad out there and seeing who'll do it for cheapest.

Who wants the cheapest unviersity president anyway?  CEO's of billion dollar corps get paid a lot... this is the same.

posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context

 It definitely sounds like the UO proposal takes Oregon out of the equation.

posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context

It sounds like the PSU presidents idea doesn't remove legislative oversight, but that the UO presidents proposal definitely takes that power away.

posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context

The student talked about the public role of legislators in setting tuition.. but the PSU president talked earlier about how the legislature will still get to do that through budget notes.  What is the worry then?

posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context

I noticed that Phil Knight talked about how the legislature was stopping Larivire from charging more to in state students....

Yet he's trying to pitch this as a way for an "affordable public education?".  RIGHT! 

They already only serve 50% in state students, the second they got this they would make it impossible for Oregonians to attend UO, or charge them drastically more.  WHY would this EVER be in the best interest of Oregonians??

Why isn't anyone poiting out that the emperor has no clothes on this idea?  Just because you say it will be more accountable doesn't make it so.

posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context

Oregonians have invested in building the UO for a hundred years- there is no way that 800 million would pay for the brand of UO, the faculty developed over time, the infrastructure, the research.

Why does UO get to set their own price for the cost of their institution?

Plus, what happens to the other institutions when UO has zapped all the bonding capacity for the state over the next ten years? Does this mean that all six other institutions just have to live without new buildings when they have their all time high enrollment?

posted 2 years, 5 months ago
view in context