5 ms·

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

by 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.
        dpark 10y ago
        There are at least 24 examples demonstrating that it's possible for a university with a football program to profit from it. Further, football does not oblige a university to spend on all the athletics they choose to fund. It's easy to imagine that more universities would have profitable athletic programs if they cut more of the net-cost programs. e.g. Rowing and archery and scuba likely cost the university while generating little to no revenue. You could eliminate these for both men and women and thus reduce the overall cost of athletics without violating title IX. (I am not proposing that this would be good or bad, merely possible and cost-saving.) Looking briefly, though, there are some legitimate articles indicating that profitable football programs are not the majority of cases, so it does appear that the profitability of football in colleges is overstated.
    - epalmer 10y ago
      I work at a small selective liberal arts university with a pretty good football and basketball team. There is a feeling and maybe it is backed up by some research, I just don't know, that competitive sports teams attract more applicants. If you have a larger applicant pool you are considered more selective. Being more selective, overtime, helps the school's 3rd party rankings. I don't know if it really works out that way but that is the prevailing view. For us the sad part is that football games and basketball games attract very few students in the stands. My wife and I enjoy going to some games and we are always surprised at how small the student crowd is.
- trendia 10y ago
  There are two points to my argument: 1) the administration cannot properly value IT because they (likely) do not understand how it works 2) the administration likely values their own staff and their athletics much more than the revenue they generate, and thus would never outsource those staff even if it was costing the school a lot Regarding (1), I would point out that it's unlikely they realize how inefficient having remote IT can be, but they'd realize how inefficient it would be to have remote coaching. For instance, the reason that you wouldn't outsource a football coach is that they need to have direct, personal communication with their team. Having someone in a foreign country "coach" your team would be very unproductive. Likewise, a President in another country would never be able to keep up with the many meetings with professors, deans, and bureaucrats that keep the school running. So, my point is more that a President would easily recognize the problems in outsourcing certain jobs, but not realize that many of the same problems will occur when you outsource IT. The truth is that infrastructure is often extremely complicated, with many interdependent features. But when you aren't in the same location, you cannot as easily manage it.
  - dpark 10y ago
    > the administration cannot properly value IT because they (likely) do not understand how it works If they cannot value IT then you should expect them to contract it to the lowest bidder. You don't pay a premium for something you don't value.
    - orbitingpluto 10y ago
      Well it's a university. Maybe the president should put in some effort? Outsourcing IT is one of those things that seriously diminishes the academic credibility of a educational institution. Outsourcing IT is something I would expect from, say, ITT Technical Institute or Trump University.
      - dpark 10y ago
        I'm not saying they should outsource. I'm saying that if you start with the claim that "the administration cannot properly value IT", the logical conclusion is outsourcing. Don't start by assuming incompetence if the goal is to argue in favor of a sound decision. Make a real argument in favor of in-house staff. Basically calling the administration incompetent is not an argument against the decision.

by trendia 10y ago

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.
        dpark 10y ago
        There are at least 24 examples demonstrating that it's possible for a university with a football program to profit from it. Further, football does not oblige a university to spend on all the athletics they choose to fund. It's easy to imagine that more universities would have profitable athletic programs if they cut more of the net-cost programs. e.g. Rowing and archery and scuba likely cost the university while generating little to no revenue. You could eliminate these for both men and women and thus reduce the overall cost of athletics without violating title IX. (I am not proposing that this would be good or bad, merely possible and cost-saving.) Looking briefly, though, there are some legitimate articles indicating that profitable football programs are not the majority of cases, so it does appear that the profitability of football in colleges is overstated.
  - epalmer 10y ago
    I work at a small selective liberal arts university with a pretty good football and basketball team. There is a feeling and maybe it is backed up by some research, I just don't know, that competitive sports teams attract more applicants. If you have a larger applicant pool you are considered more selective. Being more selective, overtime, helps the school's 3rd party rankings. I don't know if it really works out that way but that is the prevailing view. For us the sad part is that football games and basketball games attract very few students in the stands. My wife and I enjoy going to some games and we are always surprised at how small the student crowd is.
trendia 10y ago
There are two points to my argument: 1) the administration cannot properly value IT because they (likely) do not understand how it works 2) the administration likely values their own staff and their athletics much more than the revenue they generate, and thus would never outsource those staff even if it was costing the school a lot Regarding (1), I would point out that it's unlikely they realize how inefficient having remote IT can be, but they'd realize how inefficient it would be to have remote coaching. For instance, the reason that you wouldn't outsource a football coach is that they need to have direct, personal communication with their team. Having someone in a foreign country "coach" your team would be very unproductive. Likewise, a President in another country would never be able to keep up with the many meetings with professors, deans, and bureaucrats that keep the school running. So, my point is more that a President would easily recognize the problems in outsourcing certain jobs, but not realize that many of the same problems will occur when you outsource IT. The truth is that infrastructure is often extremely complicated, with many interdependent features. But when you aren't in the same location, you cannot as easily manage it.
- dpark 10y ago
  > the administration cannot properly value IT because they (likely) do not understand how it works If they cannot value IT then you should expect them to contract it to the lowest bidder. You don't pay a premium for something you don't value.
  - orbitingpluto 10y ago
    Well it's a university. Maybe the president should put in some effort? Outsourcing IT is one of those things that seriously diminishes the academic credibility of a educational institution. Outsourcing IT is something I would expect from, say, ITT Technical Institute or Trump University.
    - dpark 10y ago
      I'm not saying they should outsource. I'm saying that if you start with the claim that "the administration cannot properly value IT", the logical conclusion is outsourcing. Don't start by assuming incompetence if the goal is to argue in favor of a sound decision. Make a real argument in favor of in-house staff. Basically calling the administration incompetent is not an argument against the decision.