7 ms·

Public university lets 79 IT workers go after they train outsourced replacements

39 points by bcaulfield 10y ago

wl 10y ago
"Public university" is true but misleading. UCSF is a teaching hospital associated with the University of California. While it offers professional and graduate education in the health sciences, it more closely resembles a health care system than a public university.
- Jupe 10y ago
  Hmmm... So foreign contractors will have IT systems-level access to HIPAA-protected PHI data? I wonder if that is an issue in this case. (i.e. not sure if encryption at rest is required for HIPAA data - though it probably should be).
trendia 10y ago
I have no problem with this outsourcing as long as they first outsource the football coach and the President's personal administrative staff. On second thought, why would the University President neef to be in campus anyway? I'm sure someone in India can do just as good a job. And if they can't, we'll just force the President to train them to get severance pay.
- dpark 10y ago
  > as long as they first outsource the football coach and the President's personal administrative staff. This is bitter and pointless. At many (most?) US universities with football programs, the program is with cost neutral or profitable. Saying that the president should outsource his staff isn't compelling. You should be making an argument for why outsourcing IT is bad if that's what you think, not just saying "well then outsource this other thing!" as if that's an argument. Or will you actually be happy if the president outsources his/her staff?
  - secabeen 10y ago
    Only 24 schools generate more money than they spend: http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/athletics-departments-make-more-they-spend-still-minority http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/athlet...
    - dpark 10y ago
      That's all athletics, not just football. Although total expenses and the number of athletes have increased, budget allocations for three major sports have remained steady. Football, men’s basketball and women’s basketball garnered 13 percent, 5 percent and 4 percent of athletics expenses, respectively I wonder what percentage of revenue the football programs generate relative to their cost.
      - x0x0 10y ago
        You can't have just football: Title IX.
        dpark 10y ago
        I'm aware, but that doesn't mean that football in itself isn't making the university money. The fact that the university funnels the football surplus (assuming they have one) into other athletics doesn't mean football isn't making money. I don't believe universities are prohibited from structuring their athletics in a way that is profitable. They are simply required to provide equivalent opportunities for women. College football is common target for cries that its funding should be cut, but from what I understand, football profits are largely subsidizing other athletics at many universities.
        x0x0 10y ago
        That's ridiculous. Having football obligates the universities to spend a bunch of money elsewhere. That is part of the bill for having football! You wouldn't claim that your company ex costs is profitable and expect people to take you seriously; they'd cry what about the costs! (Wait, maybe this isn't a good example...) As gp points out, net athletics almost always lose money. Since having football, once all required costs are taking into account, is almost always a money-losing proposition, it's very fair to ask why our universities should be subsidizing the NFL's development league.
xupybd 10y ago
"The university says it will save more than $30 million by hiring HCL" Lets see how that pans out. Generally the overhead of dealing with an offshore contractor will begin to mount.

39 points by bcaulfield 10y ago

wl 10y ago

"Public university" is true but misleading. UCSF is a teaching hospital associated with the University of California. While it offers professional and graduate education in the health sciences, it more closely resembles a health care system than a public university.

Jupe 10y ago
Hmmm... So foreign contractors will have IT systems-level access to HIPAA-protected PHI data? I wonder if that is an issue in this case. (i.e. not sure if encryption at rest is required for HIPAA data - though it probably should be).

trendia 10y ago

I have no problem with this outsourcing as long as they first outsource the football coach and the President's personal administrative staff. On second thought, why would the University President neef to be in campus anyway? I'm sure someone in India can do just as good a job. And if they can't, we'll just force the President to train them to get severance pay.

dpark 10y ago
> as long as they first outsource the football coach and the President's personal administrative staff. This is bitter and pointless. At many (most?) US universities with football programs, the program is with cost neutral or profitable. Saying that the president should outsource his staff isn't compelling. You should be making an argument for why outsourcing IT is bad if that's what you think, not just saying "well then outsource this other thing!" as if that's an argument. Or will you actually be happy if the president outsources his/her staff?
- secabeen 10y ago
  Only 24 schools generate more money than they spend: http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/athletics-departments-make-more-they-spend-still-minority http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/athlet...
  - dpark 10y ago
    That's all athletics, not just football. Although total expenses and the number of athletes have increased, budget allocations for three major sports have remained steady. Football, men’s basketball and women’s basketball garnered 13 percent, 5 percent and 4 percent of athletics expenses, respectively I wonder what percentage of revenue the football programs generate relative to their cost.
    - x0x0 10y ago
      You can't have just football: Title IX.
      - dpark 10y ago
        I'm aware, but that doesn't mean that football in itself isn't making the university money. The fact that the university funnels the football surplus (assuming they have one) into other athletics doesn't mean football isn't making money. I don't believe universities are prohibited from structuring their athletics in a way that is profitable. They are simply required to provide equivalent opportunities for women. College football is common target for cries that its funding should be cut, but from what I understand, football profits are largely subsidizing other athletics at many universities.
        x0x0 10y ago
        That's ridiculous. Having football obligates the universities to spend a bunch of money elsewhere. That is part of the bill for having football! You wouldn't claim that your company ex costs is profitable and expect people to take you seriously; they'd cry what about the costs! (Wait, maybe this isn't a good example...) As gp points out, net athletics almost always lose money. Since having football, once all required costs are taking into account, is almost always a money-losing proposition, it's very fair to ask why our universities should be subsidizing the NFL's development league.

xupybd 10y ago

"The university says it will save more than $30 million by hiring HCL" Lets see how that pans out. Generally the overhead of dealing with an offshore contractor will begin to mount.