Regents Face Less Rosy Budget Picture

I noted last week that my current employer, the South Dakota Board of Regents, is projected to receive $54 million more in federal funding in the coming budget year. Under that headline, one may also note that Governor Rounds's otherwise austere budget includes $3.8 million more in state funds.

However, as Bob Mercer reports, those numbers are deceptive. The public university system will likely be tightening its belt (or are we at the budget-cutting point where strait jacket is the more apt metaphor?) just like everyone else. According to Mercer, the governor's plan expects the Regents to take $10.6 million in stimulus dollars and sock it away for FY 2012. As was the case with Rounds's entire budget address, his proposal offers no vision of how or whether the state will make up that funding shortfall when those stimulus dollars finally run out.

Mercer also notes that Governor Rounds included in his budget proposal the 2% pay increase the Regents requested. Our university profs, grounds crews, and other staff would be the only state employees getting a raise. I can certainly make the case for giving our university staff the raises they have foregone for two years... but don't expect anyone in the Legislature's Republican majority to do so.

In their budget discussion last week, the Regents apparently got a timeline for our next governor's budget. Board president Terry Baloun tells Mercer we may see Dennis Daugaard's budget proposal around January 19. Set aside some blog time for that date!

Uncle Sam Promises $54 Million Boost for SD Universities FY2012

Please tell me Kristi Noem and John Thune won't send this money back: Governor Rounds's budget proposal has Uncle Sam giving $54 million more to South Dakota's public university system in Fiscal Year 2012. That increase is part of $248 million in total anticipated federal funding for Board of Regents programs. Essentially, Uncle Sam picks up 31% of the total $797 million Regental budget.

Some universities come out better than others under the proposed budget. Here's a chart of the net changes proposed from this year's budget to next year's:

	Proposed Changes from FY 2011 to FY2012
Location	State Fund	Federal Fund	Other Fund	Total	FTE
Total	$3,818,909	$53,823,221	$19,902,254	$77,544,384	227.5
Central Office	($6,026)	$0	$1,650,845	$1,644,819	0.0
Scholarships	$31,642	$0	$0	$31,642	0.0
Employee Compensation and Health Insurance	$3,051,208	$1,113,729	$3,181,609	$7,346,546	0.0
USD	$178,715	($2,737,138)	$0	($2,558,423)	0.0
USD Med	$106,310	($1,628,199)	$0	($1,521,889)	0.0
SDSU	$247,604	$4,807,787	$11,412,400	$16,467,791	136.5
SDSM&T	$80,969	$56,579,910	$1,930,000	$58,590,879	40.0
NSU	$48,780	($747,103)	$0	($698,323)	5.0
BHSU	$40,173	($5,710,280)	$477,400	($5,192,707)	11.0
DSU	$39,534	$2,144,515	$1,250,000	$3,434,049	35.0

The biggest chunk of new federal dollars goes to the School of Mines (Tony's probably building an even bigger laser to pop popcorn at the dean's house). The biggest jump in jobs, though, comes at SDSU, which gets 60% of the new full-time equivalents.

Dakota State University comes out o.k., with nearly three and a half million more in funding and 35 new jobs. That would make up nicely for the seven teachers the Madison Central School District would have to fire to make up for the $275K Governor Rounds wants to cut from their budget. Maybe we just need to graduate some kids early and send them to DSU.

Regents Show Fiscal Restraint on Sports... Madison Next?

I noted Sunday that the South Dakota Board of Regents had a few athletic building proposals on its agenda this week. Yesterday, Bob Mercer reported that the Regents tabled all four of them. The four sports projects could cost $140 million. The money for the sports facilities would come from existing fees and private sources, but the Regents still want USD and SDSU to wait and think a few more months.

Bob Mercer explains what's really going on:

It’s a matter of political timing as much as anything, because none of those projects would have directly received a dime of taxpayers’ money. Student fees, grants and donations would have paid for them. Nonetheless, a nucleus of regents — Terry Baloun, Harvey Jewett and Randy Morris — decided now was not the time, with state government running on empty and the recession’s grip still showing in South Dakota’s unemployment rate — to be proposing big spending on big projects that aren’t clearly related to academics [emphasis mine; Bob Mercer, "Regents approve planning for athletic projects — nope!" Pure Pierre Politics, 2010.10.14].

State government on empty... recession... unemployment... now not the time for big spending not clearly related to academics... Boy! Why didn't the Madison Central School Board get this memo before proposing its multi-million-dollar new gym this week? Perhaps Regent Randy Schaefer will come home from the Regents meeting and remind his friends in the Madison Central School District of academics and fiscal restraint.

Regents Seek Eminent Domain on Brookings Sorority House

The South Dakota Board of Regents appears ready to swing the eminent domain stick on SDSU's Alpha Xi Delta sorority. Vicki Schuster at the Brookings Register reports that SDSU wants to bulldoze the Alpha Xi Delta house on the south side of campus to build Phase II of the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science complex. The project has already replaced a lot of trees and old houses with brick and pavement. The Legislature this year authorized the Regents to offer the sorority $275K for the property. The sorority has thus far said no thanks... and if I were them, I would, too.

During my undergrad days, I had the pleasure of living three blocks west of Alpha Xi Delta, right at 8th and Medary, where the SDSU Foundation building now stands. I loved it. I lived within a two minute bike-sprint from class. I never had to drive to the Union or the library, even on the coldest night. If I owned the choice Alpha Xi Delta property in a tight housing market like Brookings, I would expect a much better deal from the Regents to give it up. Alpha Xi Delta won't find a location as good for its replacement, and I suspect they won't be able to build a house of comparable size for $275K.

The value isn't just the building and location. The Regents are also taking away a prime recruitment tool for the sorority. Banish the sorority to scattered on-campus housing for a year or more while ΑΞΔ builds a new house, and the organization loses a year of easy recruitment, weakening the group for more than a couple years.

I'm no fan of the Greek system, but they're entitled to protect their organization's interests and demand a fair market price for their property like everyone else. Eminent domain is acceptable for cases of absolute public necessity. I haven't heard the case yet for the absolute necessity of another new classroom/lab building on the south edge of campus.

I haven't gotten the minutes from this week's Regental meeting yet, so I don't know for sure that they passed their condemnation resolution. Let's hope they don't ned to use it and can instead make a deal that satisfies all parties.

Patrick Weber New Student Regent! Debaters Rule!

You'd be smiling, too, if you were the newly appointed Student Regent, South Dakota Board of Regents.

Patrick Weber, pictured at JazzFest 2010. Screen cap from SF Jazz & Blues online video

"Holy crap!" I just shouted, unnecessarily scaring my wife. No, it wasn't my rain barrel tipping over (when I discovered that this morning, I just shrugged). It was the appointment of Patrick L. Weber of Montrose as student regent on the South Dakota Board of Regents.

Weber was one of my best students at Montrose HS. He was a star in one-act play, oral interpretation, and, yes debate. He went to Nationals in Lincoln-Douglas debate. He was the first Montrose student to win an SDSU Briggs scholarship (followed the next year by another Fighting Irish debater, the worthy Mr. Patrick Kane).

At SDSU, Weber was on his way to becoming a mathematician, but his involvement with the SDSU Students' Association, including some successful lobbying experiences on behalf of his fellow students in Pierre, inclined him to return to his rhetorical passions and enroll in USD's law school. Some observers might blame that turn of events on Patrick's falling in with the wrong crowd, including some kid named Daugaard.... ;-) Sibby, of course, will lament the ascension to power of another young person corrupted by my evil secular humanist teachings. PP will likely join Sibby in saying I orchestrated Weber's appointment to forward my plot to undermine the GOP. Tee hee!

All kidding aside, I say wowza, Patrick! Way to go! The debate world celebrates your raising our banner in the Regents' board room.

But wait: does this mean Patrick is now my boss? Once again, holy crap!

Regents Cut 37 Programs; DSU Loses 2

The South Dakota Board of Regents is meeting in Aberdeen this week. Among items already disposed of on their agenda: cutting low-enrollment academic programs at our six public universities. Last fall, we opened the school year with new Regents exec Jack Warner telling us that majors and specializations producing 20 graduates or fewer every four years would have to justify their continued existence. 176 such programs faced a "comprehensive productivity study."

Yesterday, the Regents pulled the trigger on 37 of those programs. The full list of programs cut is available in PDF here.

Madison's own Dakota State University was a bit nervous: we're small already, so it's not hard to find small programs. And the smaller the school, the more numbers fluctuate. Still, we got off easy, it appears: The Regents are targeting just two of DSU's programs for termination:

• BS in Scientific Forensics Technology (3 graduates)
• AS in Office Management (7 grads)

Two programs cut. Not bad, considering Northern State is losing six programs. SDSU loses five, USD nine. Hardest hit: Black Hills State, which loses 15 programs, eight of which had no graduates in the last four years. (So if a tree falls in the woods and no one is studying it, does it really make a sound?)

The Regents make three other sets of recommendations for small programs: Consolidate with another program in the system, retain but review further, and retain for critical need. DSU's list:

Consolidate

• BS in Physical Science (2 grads—merge with BHSU)

Retain, but further review (so stay nervous)

• BS in English for Information Systems (14)
• BS in Biology for Information Systems (17)
• AS in Application Programming (3)
• BBA in Management for Information Systems (11)
• BS in Professional Accountancy (9 grads; 26 more in BBA in accounting)

Retain for critical need (off the hook!)

• BS in Health Information Administration (18 grads, fed by AS program with 29 grads)
• BS in Respiratory Care (13 grads, fed by AS prog w. 69 grads)
• BSE (Education) in Biology (5)
• BSE in Business (7)
• BSE in Computer (11)
• BSE in English (5)
• BSE in Mathematics (8)
• BSE in Physical Education (18)
  

SD Budget: Cut Top Salaries, Not the Tech Fellows

The GOP's proposed budget amendments include elimination of the Board of Regents Tech Fellows program. Savings would be $770,000.

I know a number of students who are Tech Fellows. They do good work, vital work for every campus. The Tech Fellows provide tech support for students and faculty. They set up and trobuleshoot computers. They figure out why you can't connect to the network or the printer or the projector. When a paper is due and a hard drive won't spin, these Tech Fellows might make the difference between meeting the deadline and someone jumping off the Campanile. (O.K., maybe I exaggerate, but you know the feeling.)

14 DSU students cover their tuition by working as Tech Fellows. On all six public campuses, the Tech Fellows provide a valuable service. (See the praise they get at Mines). They also get great job experience, fixing a wide variety of computers and other gear and building their customer service skills. These Tech Fellows will be the I.T. gods of whatever office they work in after graduation. Their everyday service to the universities is more valuable, I would argue, than the work I do as a graduate research assistant revising research articles and grant applications that most people on campus or off will probably never hear about. (Anyone want to suggest cutting graduate research assistants instead of Tech Fellows?)

Yes, the budget is tight. Yes, the Republicans have run South Dakota's finances into the ground and now have to cut services even further to balance the books.

But instead of cutting a service that does a world of good for students, faculty, and future employers, let's make cuts where we won't lose any services at all. Take the 100 top salaries in the Regental system. Cut $7,700 from each. Or cut $4,700 from each, and then have Dr. Chicoine work for free for the coming year. (He can coast on his benefits from Monsanto for a year, can't he?) Those cuts at the top wouldn't eliminate a single service—those administrators and other top officials would be unlikely to leave during a recession... and if they did, I suspect we can replace them pretty quickly.

Alas, our Legislature seems more focused on placing burdens on the folks at the bottom of the totem pole and not vexing the folks at the top.

HB 1116: Chicoine-Monsanto Bill Filed in SD Legislature

SDSU President David Chicoine caused a fuss last spring when he accepted a high-paying position on Monsanto's corporate board. Senator Frank Kloucek (D-19/Scotland) promised to lead a discussion of this seeming conflict of interest on the floor of the Legislature.

Senator Kloucek has his chance now with House Bill 1116, which would restrict Dr. Chicoine and any other executive officer of any Regental institution making over $100,000 from almost any serious moonlighting. If HB 1116 passes, university execs could only take outside jobs that pay less than $10,000 a year. (Dr. Chicoine's total annual salary and benefits from Monsanto: $400,000.)

Now before you chuckling Republicans start cranking up the ad hominem against Senator Kloucek, take a look at HB 1116's sponsor list. Primary sponsors are Republican Rep. Jacqueline Sly (33/Rapid City) and Democrat Senator Ryan Maher (28/Isabel). Our man Frank has his name on the bill, right next to GOP colleague Senator Gene Abdallah (10/Sioux Falls). Throw in a couple more West River conservatives like Reps. Brunner and Kopp, and Sen. Kloucek has some bipartisan backing for a really interesting discussion of conflict of interest in the highest offices of the Regental system.

Higher Ed = Public Good, But SD Shifts Funding to User Fees

Brookings can produce some spectacular citizen journalism: Amy Dunkle graces the pages of The Post with a wide-ranging assessment of the cost of higher education in South Dakota.

There are lots of important lessons in Dunkle's report. South Dakota students and voters should pay particular attention to these numbers: while our governor and Legislature (and candidates for those jobs) may claim South Dakota has increased its funding for higher education, the truth is we citizens have been derelict in our duty.

Since 1999, the state's contribution (read: we taxpayer's contribution) to higher education has increased from $112 million to $174 million. That's about a 4.5% annual rate of increase. Not bad, right? Well, Board of Regents data (page 33 of this PDF) indicate that over the past decade, higher education's share of the state's general fund appropriations has stayed almost flat, actually slipping just a tick from 15.89% in 1998 to 15.33% in 2008. Sure, more tax dollars are going toward our universities, but the increase barely keeps up with the general inflation of the state budget.

In other words, when it comes to putting our money where our mouth is, South Dakota has not given higher education any higher priority than it did ten years ago.

Our universities are spending more and doing more, but the cost is increasingly borne by students and faculty. Tuition and fees are going up faster than the taxpayers' share. As Dunkle points out from BoR data, "the state’s support level was about 58 percent in 1999, leaving 42 percent for the student body. Today, that margin has shifted to about 52 percent for the students and 48 percent for the state." SDSU President David Chicoine calls that a "dramatic reversal" in higher ed funding in our state. Faculty are also bearing a greater share of the funding burden, as they face greater pressure to hustle research grants for their campuses.

Lacking the responsibility to pay our own way, we the taxpayers of South Dakota continue to believe we can rely on someone else—our students and the feds—to pay for the public good of education. Former SDSU president Peggy Miller calls us out on that irresponsibility:

“We have got to make the investment. You do not reap what you do not sow,” Miller said. “If we continue to fail to sow, we aren’t going to get the future we deserve.”

Simply put, Miller said, “We grownups are going to have to step up to the plate and pay our fair share” [Amy Dunkle, "State Universities’ Enrollments Rising Without Much Financial Help from the State," ThePostSD.com, 2009.10.27].

I hope every gubernatorial candidate will read Dunkle's full report and weigh in on whether they think the status quo is acceptable, or whether they are willing to call South Dakotans back to their common responsibility to invest in higher education.

Update 2009.10.29 07:40 CDT: A reader offers this economic observation: "Forty plus years ago when I attended State the tuition was $198 a year. The minimum wage job I worked paid $1 an hour. In five weeks I could earn enough for a years tuition and the rest of the year work for books, room and board." Currently tuition and fees for a full-time undergrad at DSU are about $6600. Minimum wage is $7.25/hr. That's 22 weeks of work, before taxes.

Regents Sue to Protect SDSU-Patented* Wheat Seeds

AgWeek notes that the South Dakota Board of Regents and South Dakota State University are already acting more like Monsanto (on whose board sits SDSU president Dr. David Chicoine). Evidently the Regents (i.e., us, South Dakota tax- and tuition-payers) are suing five producers for illegally selling or offering for sale the spring wheat varieties Traverse and Briggs. Said wheat varieties were developed by SDSU researchers and remain intellectual property of the university.

The Regents are suing under the Plant Variety Protection Act, the same law Monsanto uses to intimidate farmers to keep them from saving seeds and to protect its profits. SDSU says the suit's primary goal is to "support farmers who rely on the continued development of better wheat varieties for their farming success"—in other words, make sure dealers pay the proper fees that trickle back to SDSU to support more research.

So remember, farmers: those seeds in your field don't really belong to you... well, at least not for 20 years. You're just licensing them, like software from Microsoft.

*patented? Well, not exactly: PVP is an alternative to the official patent system, but it's a similar intellectual property protection mechanism.

Update: More Numbers (and Maps!) from Regents on Enrollment Patterns

Last week I noted that a Board of Regents study of South Dakota student enrollment geographical patterns failed to support the conclusion the Regents touted, that having campuses in each geographical region of the state keeps in-state enrollment high.

In response, the Regents office graced me with the full report... with maps! (Note: I converted the document from Word .docx to PDF: it's a beefy 2MB... but the Word .doc version would have been 4.1MB! The report has background and explanatory text; the enrollment maps are included below.)

One set of maps break down South Dakota high school graduate enrollment by county and state campus. For instance, take the graduates from Lake County who choose the South Dakota Regental institutions for their higher ed. Which schools did they choose in the 2006–2007 academic year? (Distances figured from Madison.)

1. SDSU: 43% (38 miles)
2. DSU: 36% (0 miles)
   
3. USD: 15% (97 miles by Hwy 19)
4. NSU: 2% (167 miles)
   
5. SDSM&T: 2% (345 miles)
6. BHSU: 2% (373 miles)

These numbers and the rest on the maps show some correlation between where students live and where they choose to go to university. Unfortunately, they still don't answer the important question: if South Dakota students don't have a state university in their backyard, how much more likely will they be to choose an out-of-state school?

To illustrate, consider Tripp County, about as far removed from a state campus as you can get in South Dakota. Let's figure distances from Winner:

• SDSU: 49% (264 miles)
• BHSU: 19% (258 miles)
  
• USD: 15% (175 miles)
• SDSM&T: 9% (215 miles)
• DSU: 5% (219 miles— but Doug! Talk your brother up to those kids!)
• NSU: 4% (254 miles)
  

These numbers suggest that geography matters less when there's no campus within reasonable bicycle range. The closest campus to Tripp County, USD, is only the third most popular choice among the county's in-staters. The two top choices are a good hour and a half farther away.

The real rubber-meets-the-road data would be the breakdown of what percentage of kids in Tripp County went out-of-state, and how far they went, as well as an assessment of how many Tripp County students would pick another South Dakota campus if BHSU were closed, or how many Lake County students would flee the state if DSU closed. Alas, the Regents acknowledge they don't have that data, and such data, especially the latter speculative data, would take serious time and money to get.

So, to be clear, I'm not advocating the closing of any state campus. I'm simply saying that the data we have doesn't necessarily argue that keeping all six campuses open is essential to keeping students in the state. As the Tripp County enrollment patterns demonstrate, there is more to college choice than geography. If we did close a state campus, there is every possibility that a good selection of quality programs and cheap in-state tuition would still keep lots of South Dakota students in state.

But see for yourself: enjoy the maps, see if any instructive patterns leap out at you. (Click each one for a larger image!)

Regents Say Closing Campus Would Drive Students out of State

Last winter, when State Representative Mark Kirkeby (R–35/Rapid City) proposed requiring the Board of Regents to study closing one of its six university campuses, folks in the Regental system offered quiet assurances that campus consolidation was a non-starter. Just to make sure it stays a non-starter, the Regents did their own study of enrollment patterns to provide an economic argument for keeping campuses open in every part of the state.

The Regents studied where South Dakota students go for their university education. Outgoing Regents exec Tad Perry says they found confirmation of what seems pretty sensible: "students’ geographic placement significantly influences their postsecondary decision making.” In other words, students tend to go to college close to home. As Steve Young summarized it, "...half to two-thirds of those who attend one of the state's six public schools do so at a university near their home." Perry then draws this conclusion:

"Institutions serve regional parts of the state, and all six of our regental institutions are near our borders," Perry said Friday. "So based on these findings, it seems logical to assume that if you closed a school, rather than those students being redistributed elsewhere in the state, they would be redistributed to other states" [Steve Young, "Stick with 6 Campuses, Regents Say," that Sioux Falls paper, 2009.06.28].

Hang on a moment: does anyone see the problem in this reasoning? If there's more to this study, perhaps our new local Regent Randy Schaefer can fill us in (I keep telling Randy he needs to start a Regents blog!). But nowhere in the reporting on this study do I see any measurement of the percentage of students in university-less counties, like Perkins, Hughes, or Tripp, who attend in-state schools. Do those areas of the state see a higher rate of students going out of state for university? Nor is there any quantification of the number of students in university counties, like Lake, who choose to attend universities outside their county. How many Madison, Rutland, and Chester grads pick USD or BHSU over DSU?

There is no doubt that having a university in town is certainly an advantage for folks in that town seeking a university education. But the consolidation question needs to focus on the system, not specific regions. The Regents study does not tell us where students from Madison or Howard would go if DSU closed. It does not demonstrate that Spearfish or Sturgis grads would flock to Wyoming if BHSU closed.

Rounds Appoints Randy Schaefer to Regents!

Holy cow! Madison and DSU keep a good voice on the Board of Regents! Governor Mike Rounds has appointed DSU alumnus and Madison insurance agent Randy Schaefer to fill the seat recently vacated by longtime Madison resident Dr. Richard Belatti.

Schaefer and I may disagree on other issues, but I know he's as committed to good public education in South Dakota as I am. All three of his kids are products of the Regental system (the youngest is still working on it!). As a DSU grad who stuck around town to make his career, Schaefer will speak up for what's good for the system as well as for DSU and Madison specifically.

HB 1298: Kirkeby Calls for Campus Closing

...or at least consideration thereof!

Last year, Representative Mark Kirkeby (R-35/Rapid City) floated the idea of closing a South Dakota university campus. This year he's serious: we have a bill! Hot off the presses, House Bill 1298:

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to require the Board of Regents to prepare a plan to close one of the postsecondary educational institutions under its control.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:

Section 1. The Board of Regents shall prepare a plan providing for the closure of one of the postsecondary educational institutions under its control, and shall present that plan to the Governor and to the Executive Board of the Legislative Research Council no later than November 15, 2009. The plan shall include:

1. The institution targeted for closure, the rationale behind the decision to close that particular institution, and the timelines necessary to carry out the closure;
2. An analysis of how the unique academic programs currently offered at that institution might be divided among the remaining postsecondary educational institutions;
3. An analysis of the economic impact the closure would have on the city or geographic region where the institution is located; and
4. Strategies the Board of Regents will undertake to encourage current students at that institution to remain in South Dakota to complete their higher education.

Notice HB 1298 does not call for actually closing a campus. It just calls on the Board of Regents to come up with a plan for doing so. If the bill passes, expect the Regents to work up a Part 3 that will scare the pants off any legislators who would think of doing such damage to Spearfish, Aberdeen, or Madison (does anyone think any other campus could make the chop list?).

SD Budget Cuts: Regents Quietly Acquiesce

All those who've been calling on Governor Rounds to include some real cuts in his do-over budget are getting their wish. Of course, for some anti-government fundamentalists, even yesterday's proposals will sound like small potatoes, but this is real practical government, not a Grover Norquist parlor game.

Among the cuts is a five-million-dollar whack out of the Board of Regents' pie. The cuts include these items (from a news release we BoR employees received from Regents exec Tad Perry right after the governor's speech yesterday):

• Redefine the mission of [i.e., shut down] the South Dakota School for the Deaf to an outreach education and support role, closing the instructional site in Sioux Falls. General fund budget savings of $2 million.
• Reduce state fund general support for the Cooperative Extension Service. General fund budget savings of $1 million.
• Eliminate the state match for maintenance and repair funds used to maintain Board of Regents’ buildings. General fund budget savings of $1,632,999.
• Cut institutional programs or activities across the regents’ system. General fund budget savings of $500,000.

My plum still appears to be in the pie (I hope keeping my assistantship is part of what Perry means when he says "Our commitment as a board was to do no long-term harm to the academic and research functions of our public universities, which are foundational to preparing and supporting South Dakota’s future workforce"), but I'm still watching.

One thing does stand out about the messages I've received this week from the Regents and our president at DSU, Doug Knowlton: Nowhere do their messages signal that we are going to stand and fight these cuts.

Now you know me: I'm always keen to identify situations where the powers that be aren't standing up for what is right. Even in the current budget situation, supporters of education, the arts, the State Fair, and other targeted programs have every right to make the case that the cuts to their favored programs will do more harm than good. The Regents have an obligation to speak up for their employees.

But I'm not so sure that Tad Perry's talk of standing "as a partner with Gov. Rounds and the Legislature" is an abdication of advocacy for the folks who work for them. Maybe the Regents' apparent acquiescence to the cuts as announced is a signal that they've already done their advocacy and have already won. Look again at those cuts. Out of $5 million, only $500K is coming from core university functions. We could cover that by consolidating three university presidentships into one. We're not talking about losing profs or cutting major programs. We're not even mentioning closing a campus.

I'm not prepared to go as far as Mr. Powers and declare that the Regents are getting off scot free. No raises next year isn't exactly painless, but that's still a big step away from no jobs... which is exactly the barrel over which the Regents and the governor know they have every recession-spooked worker.

For now, I'm reading the Regents' acquiescence this way: Tad Perry is going to keep his head down and talk team because he knows it could have been much worse. I'd still like to hear some ruckus for our side, but with the vast majority of Regental employees just happy to have dodged the bullet, no one on the university side is going to take any chances.

Smartest Kids on Campus: Athletes!

Female athletes, that is....

A discussion of athletics and student retention at South Dakota's universities led me to the Board of Regents' most recent Athletic Academic Report. Three years of data found that athletes do indeed stick around and finish academic programs at a better rate than non-athletes (see p. 2).

Athletes in South Dakota's Regental system also appear to be a little smarter than their less sporting counterparts. Table 13 of the report breaks down athlete GPAs by sport and school for AY2006–2007. Systemwide, the athlete GPA that year was 2.80. The non-athlete GPA: 2.69.

But some rough averaging (the table doesn't give numbers of participants in each sport, so my calculations are subject to revision) shows that the women are carrying the men to get the higher overall average. Across eleven sports, female athletes average a 3.12. Across ten sports, male athletes average 2.62. In every sport offered to both sexes, women outscore their male counterparts in the classroom (on average by 0.43 grade points, or 16%).

Some other data of interest:

• The smartest athletes are SDSU's women's equestrian team (GPA 3.35). The next highest GPAs are in women's soccer (3.24) and women's outdoor track (3.20—running outside makes you tougher and smarter).
• The... lowest scoring athletes are the men's swimmers (GPA 2.45... although USD is pulling down SDSU in this category). The next lowest GPAs are in football (2.47) and wrestling (2.48).
  
• SDSU and USD are in a tight battle for smartest athletes overall. SDSU's overall athlete GPA is 2.98; USD's is 2.94. Mines isn't far back at 2.90.
• The school with the lowest overall athlete GPA? Our own Dakota State at 2.51.
  

Now keep in mind that when this study says athletes, it means participants in the official competitive athletic programs, not all those kids who play intramurals or run or golf or play Ultimate Frisbee on their own. I'd like to think that my occasional running and biking help me perform better in the classroom by clearing my mind and getting my blood pumping. (There is evidence of a fitness–brains link in kids.)

Overall, our university athletes are academic leaders. But the ladies are the real role models, balancing athletics and the classroom and doing better in both. Let's pick up the slack, fellas!

Regents Pick Ohioan Smith for NSU President

A press release from the Board of Regents says James M. Smith of Bowling Green State University has beaten Madison's own Mark Lee in the competition to become the next president of Northern State University.

To Dr. Smith, welcome to South Dakota! To Dr. Lee, don't sweat it! Where would you rather live: beautiful Lake Herman, or Aberdeen? Besides, why would anyone want to be Ken Blanchard's boss? ;-)

-----
To the good, Dr. Smith and his wife Connie Ruhl-Smith have produced research (cited in this punchy 2007 essay from the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration) showing that corporate-style reforms and for-profit schools endorsed by conservatives do not produce better education. Nice!

Regents Meet at DSU Thursday and Friday

My bosses, the Board of Regents, are coming to Madison Thursday and Friday. That means no parking in the Mundt Library lot, even if you have a permit. That also means you can come watch education policy being made (mmm, sausage...). The parts (just parts?) of the meetings open to the public:

• Thursday 10 a.m. to noon
• Thursday 2 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
• Friday 9:30 a.m. to noon

There's also a campus forum Thursday at 3:30 p.m. for DSU staff and students. The pay date switching scheme and the system-wide laptop initiative are on hold for a year, but there should still be plenty to ask the Regents about.

Also on the Regents' agenda, a reception at Dr. Knowlton's new house on 1022 NE 9th Thursday evening (that was fast!), and a Friday 7:30 breakfast with local legislators at the Trojan Center (give 'em heck, Gerry!).

Regents Delay Laptops and Pay Date Switch

Dr. R.T. Tad Perry sends all Board of Regents personnel a note indicating that Governor M. Michael Rounds's gloom and doom on the state budget hasn't put the kaibosh on the Regents' plans to pursue the Mobile Computing Initiative, the plan to require every student on state university campuses to purchase a laptop computer for school and integrate that device into daily instruction. Far from it: if the Legislature can't make funding available, the Regents will get it through student technology fees. It will just take longer to implement, moving from a two-year implementation starting fall 2009 to a four-year phase-in starting fall 2010.

On the good side, the Regents appear to be moving toward the purchase flexibility I've been advocating from the start. Students will be able to bring whatever computer they want to campus, as long as it meets certain tech specs. Alas, the universities will still play favorites, offering tech support only for machines from the "preferred vendor" (who had better not be MPC Gateway!). Given that university tech services are generally staffed by students, those student workers would only benefit from working on the widest range of brands possible. Let those student workers get the experience of working on a diverse set of equipment and maintaining a robust yet broadly accessible wireless network.

On the bad side, the Regents still plan to manufacture money from nothing. The pay date switching scheme remains in effect but will wait until summer 2010. The rationale: this delay gives employees time to plan for the fact that 1/12 of their pay and benefits will disappear from one year's accounts. Given that retirees will be affected most negatively by the balance-sheet chicanery, the Regents plan to offer our older employees incentives to "self-select retiring during the months of April, May, and June of 2009 for FY10, FY11, and FY12." Doing so will get the employee a one-time stipend equal to 10% of her/his FY09 pay in July 2009.

I'll let the aspiring retirees do the math there; I'm buying the notion that for my generation, retirement will be exist in nostalgia only....

SD Board of Regents Promise Budget Scrutiny

The Board of Regents is trying to get out ahead of the meat cleaver, making the necessary and politic noises about budget scrutiny just before today's surely grim budget report from Governor M. Michael Rounds (live on South Dakota Public Radio at 1 p.m. Central, noon Mountain!). Regents exec R. T. Tad Perry vows his admins will take a good hard look at open positions to see if they really need to be filled. They'll also get out a more finely toothed comb on out-of-state travel requests and big capital expenditures. (Sibby will believe it when he sees it.)

Good thing we're bringing the Midwest Association for Information Systems conference to Madison next year!