Whoa, missed that!  Not sure I like that promise.  Not that I am any soothsayer, but I said last year this is going to get worse, and I still see this as a minimum of two years out before the bleeding stops.

And before this thread locks up, I'd love a platform to discuss my '200-mile-van-trip-tether' for non-revenue sports. Like Division III, but with larger endowments and lower tuition.

Yes, and let me clarify that I am not "knocking" those majors, I do have a problem though that some of these students (have worked with many), who are going through some of these majors, they hit the Senior year and they wonder, "hey what can I do with this?"  We all have different abilities and we all gain different intangibles out of our experiences, however some of these majors really do lack a "Job Market", and at high five figure debt that is a big risk IMO.  Put that with resources becoming increasingly sparse and fields going to be sacrificed, where do we begin?  Things cannot continue down the same slippery slope they have been heading.  Job markets are tight and employable majors will give someone more options.

I agree, and I do not see "employable" majors as being safe either, as you state there are somethings that make little sense.

First off...the Dance team, while interesting to look at, is not really a true understanding of "dance". I get your point, but this ironically underlines my point that by eliminating majors that produce graduates with no working skills is ludicrous and lacking any insight.

I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth here, but we are striking down the essential ingredients of a top notch public institution when we eliminate liberal arts' departments (let's be frank, English, Dance, Music, Art, History, Philosophy, etc are out the door when we consider job skills). Ironically, without dance or arts or literature or rhetoric or history or writing, we are a shell of a university. 

I don't think the solution for budget problems is to punish the kids who can't fit into the capitalistic mold of "What the hell am I going to do with this?" To make the long jump to 5 figure debt is a convenient move, but doubtful that it doesn't also hold true for any other major at Ohio University (or any university)

I contend that to just draw a line between those majors with "employable skills" and those that don't have these ingredients is, ironically, lacking the critical thought that these majors typically foster. This is not to say that most majors don't foster critical thought, but the more and more I read this thread, the more disheartened I find myself over the future of Ohio University.

I was an English major and loved every moment. I never thought: "Hey! how am I going to get a job!" I was too consumed in developing my mind. Furthermore, I know what these discussions lead to...and they're already in that direction. You know what? I got a job and I'm more than happy...but, this was never the purpose of my time at Ohio University. 

I don't want Ellis Hall to become the center of technical writing. It's a hall for critical thought and ideas. Does the kid working the PhD in Creative Writing nervous about their future after Ohio? Sure, but they don't go into major debt (at least the ones I know at Ohio) and they will find their way to a happy and meaningful life...and they didn't have to be an Engineer.

This is more evidence to the growing trend that the only way to contribute to our culture is by sucking any form of culture from it. Critical thinking being disguised by employment numbers and not by actual intellectual thought. This is not a university or a place of higher learning. It's Ohio Vo Tech. That's it. Call it what you will, but it's not the intention of a college education.

Plus...and truthfully...you want to be embarrassed by your university. Rufus is nothing compared to having a university filled with students warped by the thoughts of $$$,  instead of rooted in critical thought that may (or may not) lead to capital ideals. 

So, where do you cut?  Do you cut everyone equally?  do you take away from Engineering and keep the arts, do you cut staffing and continue to increase enrollment?  Do you cut Athletics? Do you cut research (which is actually making Ohio University money)?  To quote a great artist:  "The times they are a changin'"

1. It's Bob Dylan. Great artist is fine, but it's Bob Dylan. I figure you know this, but that bugs me.

2. I don't know. I do know that these are not simple "hey let's cut here" ideas. Unfortunately, as I said in my previous post, to make financial reforms in public education is political suicide. Everyone wants the simple answer...
    a. cut pensions
    b. fire teachers
    c. fire admins.
    d. keep the building like it is
    e. vouchers
    f. cut programs

All of these together scratch the surface, but the voters get these arguments and that's why they stick. Workign on this takes a steady hand with a critical mind.

This is a line by line cutting of the budget. This is looking for redundancies and removing them. It's hard friggin' work. I did last year with some of my co-workers I teach with and it took us 8 months to eliminate 1.2 million from a 36 million budget just to make it tidy...and we will probably have to do it again.

However, these are not easy to explain politically and the public thinks it's "tricky math". But, it's tough work and people have to be willing to do it (and I assume they're trying to).

It is very tough work and the problem at Ohio University is we have had to cut over 60Million just in the past 7 years.  Alot of the fine line, item by item tiding up is done.  The administration said last year that the next cuts will be bloody and painful.  I take them at their word on this.

If you are going to cut majors, I wouldn't look just at which programs have a "direct job field," but rather which are in low demand with the students.  History, philosophy, etc. do not generally have direct job markets, but do provide valuable analytical training that is always in fairly high demand (relatively speaking) with students.  There is no reason to axe those programs.  Rather, I'd look at which majors are routinely catering to only a handful of students.

The problem with all of this talk, though, is that cancelling a major only gets you so far.  In order to get real cost savings, you have to eliminate entire departments in order to let go of tenured faculty.  And while we can argue about whether there is really a need for 12 separate music-related majors, you really have to get rid of all of them to realize significant budget relief. 

If you asked the question "Can I get an Amen?", I would answer "Amen".

Son of gun.  Here I am in the French village (and struggling with this French keyboard) of Ribeauville.  Lynne is in bed after a train ride from Paris.  I decide to log on and check in with my favorite website and, voila!, I see Flomo explaining how I would argue the issue in question.  Dadgum - not exactly a French expression - imagine my surprise in learning that something I said earlier stuck with somebody. 

Flomo is right.  I do believe that higher ed could use a stronger dose of the management rigor and discipline that more companies have been forced to employ.  Financially brutalized  companies by the hundreds or thousands have learned these lessons the hard way.  All 3 of my corporate alma maters - GE, TRW, Timken - have fallen victim to these and other ills:
* Not keeping a sharp enough eye on the competition
* Not stepping inside the minds of customers and asking: What do they expect from us?  What do they really need from us?
* In flush financial times, listening to a manager propose an idea that is deemed good, agree to spend the money to bring additional staff aboard to implement said good idea - and then fail to keep close tabs on said implementation to ascertain whether, in fact; it is providing sufficient value to the organization.

In staffing and paying for staff; how rigorously has OU been analyzing its true competition?

To what extent has OU crawled inside the minds of its customers - students, prospective students, their parents - and asked: what do they really expect from us?  What do they need from us?

To what extent has OU looked at every position and asked: How much measurable value is it providing OU?

I could be wrong - perhaps I am - but I tend to think that OU could slash administrative spending by 30 percent or so beyond cuts already made and emerge a more energized, more nimble and more effective organization.  I say that based on observing the dynamics occurring in the wake of such cuts that were initially perceived as draconian.  My first object lesson:  In 1971 with the nation mired in recession, my GE unit laid off 40 percent of staff.  I survived the purge but was left wondering just how could we fulfill our mission.  The answer wasn't long in coming; the org emerged stronger; more energized and better able to take on ensuing challenges.

The hour is growing late here; so for now; bon nuit.

NO WAY WILL I BE VOTING FOR THE CURRENT PARTY IN POWER!  That's all I got say about that!

Thought this article was timely. Kind of scary to think that while one school is attempting to reduce budget deficits, another one can pull 200-400k out of thin air.