The Periodic Table, Too

Or, Damning With Faint Praise?

From the Pioneer Press

It would be one thing if either Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty or the Democratic-Farmer-Labor majorities in the Minnesota House and Senate actively opposed a light-rail project linking St. Paul and Minneapolis. That would make it easier to understand why the project sits on a siding as the regular legislative session enters its final week.

But Pawlenty, while not blowing train whistles with enthusiasm, supported $70 million in state funding for the Central Corridor project earlier this year. His appointed Metropolitan Council chair, Peter Bell, sees the project as critical and has worked hard to reduce costs and remove roadblocks. DFL legislative leaders have the pro-rail enthusiasm the governor lacks, and even enacted (over his veto) a measure allowing an increase in metropolitan sales taxes to help fund transit.

We support the project as a vital link in our transportation network and as another option for those driven out of their cars by gas-pump-shock. We would be upset if our state leaders decided the project is unneeded or that economic conditions call for a postponement. But at least we could understand it. What we can't fathom, and what the public always faults the Legislature for, is this do-nothing runaround that never says "no" but never says "yes" either.

Its estimated cost is $909 million. Half is to come from federal tax dollars. The other half is to be divided among state tax dollars and property taxes raised by Ramsey and Hennepin counties.

It's our hard-earned money, and it's a fair bit of it. We understand the concerns of those who aren't sold on rail or who openly oppose the project. Many fiscal conservatives are in this camp. We believe that they fail to acknowledge the equally enormous expense of roads and bridges. We support both. For that reason, we supported the DFL transportation bill that raised new money for roads, bridges and transit.

Pawlenty originally put $70 million for the project in his capital projects bill. But when the Legislature presented him with a bill that he felt was too costly, one of the vetoed items was the Central Corridor appropriation. He has said the project can be revived if there is an agreement on the separate issue of how to deal with an expected shortfall in the general fund budget.

On his radio show Friday, he called Central Corridor "the nearly $1 billion light-rail project between Minneapolis and St. Paul. It's $100 million a mile, I think $20,000 a foot.'' We note the new I-35W bridge is costing $234 million to carry cars 1,200 feet over water and banks of the Mississippi. By the gov's accounting, that comes out to $195,000 a foot.

Pawlenty said the debate over routing the rail line through the University of Minnesota campus is a problem. Indeed it is — but he offered no help on that front. He is in his sixth year in office but we do not recall him getting behind this project or fighting it. Friday was no exception. "I said I'm not opposed to it, necessarily,'' he said.

The project won't be built without federal funding. To remain in the pipeline, Peter Bell wants to submit preliminary engineering reports to the U.S. Department of Transportation this fall. So an agreement on state money is needed this session — by May 19. An agreement with the university will also have to come, although not quite as quickly. We have confidence that Bell and U officials will get that done.

On Friday, University of Minnesota President Bob Bruininks urged Pawlenty to approve the $70 million Central Corridor item — a signal that the university wants the train. U vice president Kathleen O'Brien said Friday that "dozens of people are working to figure how to make it work.'' Bell was working equally hard to respond to the university's routing concerns, a spokesman said.

"This is zero hour,'' said Rep. Alice Hausman, DFL-St. Paul, a stalwart Central Corridor champion. She's right. We understand and respect the governor's right to negotiate. We don't agree with everything Hausman and DFL leaders want. But if everyone favors it — or at least, no one opposes it — the Central Corridor should not be the last bargaining chip of the 2008 legislative session.

The University administration has taken major steps to sabotage the project if it does not use the so-called Northern route. Calling for support while lobbying against the project is not the openness and transparency publicly espoused by OurLeader.

Pay attention to what they do, not what they say.

Posted by William Gleason at 01:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From the Daily

Despite the research expansion, officials acknowledged federal funding has been hard to come by.

"There's no question there's not as much money as there used to be," Cerra said.

With new facilities, "it will be much easier (to obtain funding) than it was two months ago," he [Cerra] said.

Bruininks said "relatively flat" funding from the National Institutes of Health is "barely keeping pace with inflation."

Every NIH-funded biologist can rattle off the story of the agency's budgetary rise and fall over the last 15 years. In the 1990s, President Bill Clinton pledged to double the NIH budget within five years. He did, and the agency's R&D budget jumped from $13 billion in 1998 to $26 billion in 2003 - triggering a flood of scientists into the field, a burst of building activity at institutions, and the expectation that any well-respected scientist with a reasonable idea could receive federal funding.

That all ended in 2003, when the country was consumed by terrorism, a budget deficit, and a war.

So in 2003, NIH's R&D budget began to, as many now say, flatline: tracking inflation and inching from $26.4 billion in 2003, to $27.2 billion in 2004, and $27.9 billion in 2005. The situation has not changed much since then: For fiscal year 2009, President George W. Bush requested $29.5 billion.

The trouble is, science doesn't shift as quickly as political focus does, and NIH grant applications continued to pour in, even when the amount of available money slowed to a trickle.

In 1999, scientists submitted 8,957 applications for R01 grants classified as type 1, or new submissions (these figures include only original applications, not resubmissions). The agency awarded 1,761 applications, for a success rate of 19.7%.

By 2005, the number of applications rose to 10,605, and only 970 were approved. That means only 9.1% were successful, and 9,635 were rejected - more than the total number of submissions only six years earlier.

For type 2 grant applications, which request to continue an already-awarded R01 grant, the numbers tell the same story.

In 1999, 3,214 funded scientists requested renewals; 1,772 received them, for a success rate of more than 55%.

By 2005, 3,896 needed renewals of their grants, but only 1,262 requests were awarded; the success rate had fallen below 33%. So among nearly 4,000 scientists who were working off NIH funds in 2005, more than 2,600 lost that support.

In 2007, more than 4,100 scientists were denied renewals of their R01s.

And yes this has happened at Minnesota. We all know colleagues who have fallen off the NIH wagon. Very good scientists. So don't pretend, Frank, that with these new facilities it is going to be "much easier" to obtain funding.

In your dreams...

Posted by William Gleason at 02:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From the Daily:

The state is funding 75 percent of the $292 million facilities and infrastructure costs for four new research sites. The University is responsible for the other 25 percent, or $73 million

Frank Cerra, senior vice president of health sciences, said each facility should generate $20 million to $25 million in new project money.

More than $300 million of University research funding - roughly half of all current sponsored funding - feeds the biomedical science departments, University President Bob Bruininks said.

Minnesota has more than 500 biomedical-related businesses, employing around 250,000 people, University officials said.

Each facility will create roughly 1,000 new jobs, Cerra said, and will hopefully attract major investment companies to help develop the area.

"In the next five to seven years, there will probably be 5,000 to 7,000 new jobs over in that area, just from these kinds of investments," he said.

Faculty salaries, which aren't included in the $292 million, will be paid with multiple funds, Cerra said, including cost reductions, internal reallocations and support from partner organizations.

The University is competing with schools like Berkeley, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Wisconsin and Michigan, he [Cerra] said.

Despite the research expansion, officials acknowledged federal funding has been hard to come by.

"There's no question there's not as much money as there used to be," Cerra said.

With new facilities, "it will be much easier (to obtain funding) than it was two months ago," he [Cerra] said.

Bruininks said "relatively flat" funding from the National Institutes of Health is "barely keeping pace with inflation."

What do the numbers say?

The University lagged in federal research expenditures behind schools like Michigan and Wisconsin, according to 2006 data from the Center for Measuring University Performance.

It's also ranked below the same schools in biological sciences, according to U.S. News & World Report.

The University's Medical School is also ranked lower than Ohio State University and Wisconsin by the same rankings.

In their goal to become a top three research institution, University officials have used the Center for Measuring University Performance's rankings as a benchmark.

According to 2007 rankings, the University was in the second tier of top public-research universities - in the top 13 overall.

Compared to 2006, the University remained relatively stagnant in rankings, but the number of peer schools in the same tier rose from three to five.

Internal reallocation? Why don't we just do away with the English department, the philosophy department, art history... You know, any of those disciplines that don't bring in research m-o-n-e-y.

"For an individual, $1 million is frequently a starting point for salary and start-up money. If you're doing research with a group, it could be $10 million, $15 million, up to $25 million. That's the nature of the marketplace." Frank Cerra

A million here, 25 million there... Pretty soon we are talking about real money.

(Apparently Frank believes in the American method: Shoot first and ask questions later.)

Posted by William Gleason at 12:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From the Pioneer Press:

The sole internal candidate, Dr. Gary Sandefur, has been dean of the College of Letters and Sciences since 2004.

The other candidates include Dr. Biddy Martin, provost of Cornell University in New York; Dr. Timothy Mulcahy, vice president for research at the University of Minnesota; and Dr. Rebecca Blank, the former dean at the Gerald Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan.

Mulcahy is still well-known on campus, where he spent 20 years of his career. He was associate vice chancellor for research policy from 2002 to 2005 before he left for the Minnesota job. He joined the human oncology faculty in 1985 and served as associate dean for biological sciences from 1996 to 2002.

Posted by William Gleason at 05:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From the Rainy Lake Daily Journal

May 6, 2008 - 1:07pm — Journal Staff

Tuition and fees at the U would jump 9.5 percent under a threat by university officials. They say that if Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s budget proposal becomes reality, tuition and fees will increase from the 7.5 percent originally planned to 9.5 percent. Pawlenty’s proposal calls for a cut of $27.3 million to the school’s budget.

We’re disappointed that the U would even propose the 7 percent increase, let alone add another 2 percent along with a threat.

Last year, the U got a 17 percent increase in funding from the state and yet tuition increased by 7 percent.

Richard Pfutzenreuter, a university vice present and chief financial officer said the tuition increases would allow U to “make investments” and “keep the university's momentum moving forward.”

He pointed at Pawlenty’s plan to cut 27.3 million from the U budget, saying, if that happens, something’s gotta give and that’s going to be tuition.

Reasonable tuition increases are understandable. The cost of everything, even education, rises each year. But the level of increases proposed by the U — especially in light of the fact that last year’s allotment, which was much higher than the rate of inflation.

... at the same time, a diploma from the University of Minnesota must remain attainable to most of the state’s kids. That won’t be the case if tuition and fees continue to rise at the rate proposed for the 2008-09 school year and enacted last year.

Why don't we make investments in our students, Pfutz? Which is more important, being one of the third best research universities on the planet or educating the citizens of the state?

Forward momentum?

Ambitious aspirations, indeed....

Posted by William Gleason at 12:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Daily Reports This Disturbing News

But didn't OurLeader just say (yesterday's Daily):

Bruininks said students feel the impact of the top-three initiative in the sense that it's a "different approach for education."

"In nearly all of our fields, I think students benefit from learning from faculty members who are on the cutting edge of their fields," he said. "It makes the education we provide distinctive and very special."

Note: I am not being critical of adjuncts, having done time as a "non-tenure track" faculty member.

The criticism is directed at OurLeader who on one hand argues that a research oriented faculty will be better teachers.

But on the other hand, the reward for being a good researcher is minimization of teaching duties - the slack being picked up by adjuncts.

You can't have it both ways, Bob.

Posted by William Gleason at 03:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The governor and the state legislature are scheduled to discuss the state budget in St. Paul this weekend.

At what point are the legislature and the governor going to tire of this game and tell him that if he does, once again, take it out on the students, that there will be dire consequences?

As reported by MPR:

Nearly 10 percent tuition hike possible at U of M next fall

St. Paul, Minn. — The University of Minnesota's tuition increase would approach double digits next fall if the state budget is adopted with the governor's recommended cuts.

Tuition would go up 9.5 percent under one of three scenarios released today in President Robert Bruininks university budget proposal. The other two scenarios maintain the tuition increase of 7.5 percent--which is the number mapped out a year ago after the legislative budget session.

"The bulk of the solution to a $27 million cut will come through internal budget cuts at the university and delaying investments that we had hoped to make in a variety of academic programs--we will have to trim those back." Chief Financial Officer Richard Pfutzenreuter says.

The university has a program in place to reduce the tuition increase by two percent for middle income students. Pfutzenreuter notes the program probably wouldn't apply if the university had to absorb the $27 million reduction.

The House and Senate are considering lesser cuts to the university of $5 million to $10 million. Under those scenarios, Bruininks' budget would not add to the scheduled 7.5 percent tuition hike. However it would require internal cuts and possibly job reductions.

"We were...hoping to make investments in new honors programs and writing initiatives and hiring a new chair in genetics and cell biology, making investments in medical devices and nanotechnology and a new center for science technology," Pfutzenreuter said.

In addition to the budget cuts, the university is also proposing an early retirement incentive program for faculty and staff. It's projected that six percent of staff take the retirement option. If so, the university could save as much as $50-million.

The retirement incentive is the university's effort to head off what Pfutzenreuter believes will be additional state budget problems down the road.

Great, Pfutz. We are going to hire how many new faculty to fill the new biomedical research buildings? And we are going to go out and hire big guns (like Jacko and Sainfort) with what? If we need to get six percent of the staff to retire in order to make it through this recession, does this much hyped expansion make sense?

Long past time to get real.

Added later:

And now the Strib of the red telephone chimes in. The word threatening seems an entirely appropriate description of OurLeader's behavior, although I prefer blackmail.

U now is considering a 9.5% tuition increase

The University of Minnesota is threatening to add 2 percentage points if the Legislature approves Gov. Pawlenty's request for $27.3 million in budget cuts. The cost for many students may top $10,000 for the first time.

"If we get to $27 million, we'll do some more cutting, but we're going to have to turn to tuition," said Richard Pfutzenreuter, a university vice president and chief financial officer. "It's a pretty simple message."

Pawlenty spokesman Brian McClung was disappointed with the U's stance.

"Last year, the University of Minnesota received a 17 percent increase in funding from the state," McClung said. "Even with that large increase, the U raised tuition by 7 percent -- and now they're talking about another 7.5 or 9.5 percent increase. We are very disappointed that the U can't hold tuition increases to a reasonable level when they are receiving funding increases that are several times the rate of inflation."

Posted by William Gleason at 01:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Or, Is Anyone in the U of M Administration Listening?

According to Kiplinger, we have the highest average student loan debt of any (public) school in the BigTen:

Average Debt at Graduation

Big Ten Public Universities

Illinois $15,413

Ohio State $18,130

Indiana $19,756

Iowa $20,234

Purdue $20,102

Wisconsin $20,282

Michigan State $22,147

Penn State $23,500

Michigan $23,353

Minnesota $24,995

Marie Reilly has an excellent commentary on MoneyLaw about student loans. Perhaps people in high places - Bob, Tom - should start thinking about this?

Hausman said she was wearing the button with the hopes that everyone negotiates in good faith over the final weeks of the session. She wouldn't say when asked if the button was directed at the University of Minnesota and Governor Pawlenty.

The U of M has been raising some hackles in recent weeks because of its shifting stance on the Central Corridor Light Rail Line. Governor Pawlenty vetoed funding for Central Corridor in the bonding bill but included the proposal in his latest budget offer.

Posted by William Gleason at 10:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Under the leadership of Provost Sullivan, the University community articulated "an ambitious aspiration for the University—to be one of the top three public research universities in the world [sic] within a decade."

Institutions With Newly Elected (2008) National Academy of Science Members

Berkeley 3
University of Texas – Austin 3

Oregon State 1
Maryland 1
UCSF 1
UC – Santa Cruz 1
Indiana University 1
Oregon Health & Sciences University 1
Michigan 1
University of Texas – Southwestern 1
Wisconsin 1

Minnesota has 13 members (total). In the last ten years we have had 2 elected - Professors Tilman and Goldman. Wisconsin has a total of 44 members. In the last ten years they have had 19 new members elected.

"I've heard some of the 'doubters' say things like, 'I'd settle for best in the Big Ten," he [Bruininks] said. "Students don't choose the University of Minnesota for (a) mediocre future."

If this isn't hubris, Bob, I don't know what is. We'd be extremely fortunate to be one of the best schools in the BigTen. Get real. Continuing on with this third best public research university in the universe stuff is an embarrassment and only serves to make you look foolish. Wake up and smell the fair trade coffee.

Posted by William Gleason at 12:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

From the Star-Tribune:

A representative of the University of Minnesota Alumni Association (letter, April 26) inaccurately implied that the Metropolitan Council initially approved a plan for the Central Corridor light-rail transit line that included a tunnel under Washington Avenue. That simply is not accurate.

In June 2006, when the council approved a recommendation for LRT on University and Washington avenues, Chairman Peter Bell warned that the cost of the project would have to come down if it were to meet federal cost-effectiveness requirements and win federal matching funds essential for construction. Chairman Bell specifically said that a tunnel, costing $200 million or more, was one of several features that would have to be carefully scrutinized during preliminary engineering.

Further study determined that a tunnel simply was too expensive, but that light rail would work on Washington Avenue as part of a transit-pedestrian mall. The university countered by resurrecting the so-called "northern alignment" through Dinkytown. Bell agreed to listen to the U's arguments, but warned that making such a major change in the alignment would likely delay the project for a year and add at least $40 million in inflationary costs.

It is important to understand that the northern alignment is one of dozens of options that had been carefully evaluated and rejected years earlier during the corridor "alternatives analysis," which was led by Ramsey County.

It's clear that during the last two decades, "all of the options" for improved transit in the Central Corridor have been studied and the best one has emerged -- a light-rail line with an auto-free, transit-pedestrian mall on Washington Avenue.

STEVEN DORNFELD, ST. PAUL; PUBLIC AFFAIRS DIRECTOR, METROPOLITAN COUNCIL

Posted by William Gleason at 01:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Watch What They Do Rather Than Listen to What They Say."

The Pioneer Planet has an interesting article today concerning the activities of university attorney Rotenberg, President Bruininks, and VP O'Brien in support of the Central Corridor project.

The public good, my foot...

Posted by William Gleason at 02:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

And Other Avoidance Mechanisms

When you can't win an argument based on its merits, make a lot of noise and point elsewhere.

Today we have another vaguely threatening op-ed from the University administration.

What, exactly, is the point of this article? Well, the university does not want light rail at grade on Washington Avenue for a variety of reasons, none of which seem to stand up to serious scrutiny.

People who know anything about urban planning seem to think that light rail at grade along Washington Avenue with a pedestrian mall would be a very good idea for the next 100 years. Many holding this opinion are faculty and staff at the university. The administration wants light rail so much that it lobbied the state and the feds against funding:

Gov. Tim Pawlenty said he vetoed funding for the Central Corridor light rail line in part because of concerns expressed by the University of Minnesota. Top university officials have been voicing their concerns to state and federal officials.

It looked as if the route was not going to go where they wanted it. Their arguments against it have been oblique and vague and this smokescreen continues today in an op-ed in the Pioneer Press:

Enhance transportation, but be sure to protect neighborhoods, too

By Kathleen O'Brien

There is probably an image of the University of Minnesota that persists in the collective memory of those who were here 10 to 20 years ago — of long registration lines winding through Fraser Hall; long lines of cars waiting, sometimes for more than one hour, to get into a parking lot; and classrooms that were sorely in need of renovation.

And a four year graduation rate of 18%...

All that has changed at the university over the years: registration can now be done online and the university has made a big investment in modernizing its buildings and improving the educational environment.

Ah, excuse me please but where was good old Folwell Hall in the last session at the legislature? And how many years did it take the U to step up to the plate on the Science Classroom Building? And how much attention did they pay to the faculty members who actually use the building? Look at what they do, not what they say. Claims continue to be made about huge advances. But this supposed huge change comes by comparison to an abysmal baseline. Our graduation rates are still near the bottom of the BigTen and the lowest of the administration's peer comparison group.

The parking situation has improved tremendously over the past 20 years, too, largely due to the university's strong commitment to provide transportation alternatives for all coming to the U and investments that enhance service and accessibility to and around campus.

Today, two-thirds of the university's daily commuters bus, carpool, bike or walk to and from campus. Twenty thousand students use the U-Pass program, a university-subsidized program that provides unlimited transit rides at greatly reduced fares; 2,000 employees use a similar program. The university also provides free shuttle service between its East Bank, West Bank, and St. Paul campuses, including express buses.

That's why it is vitally important that the Central Corridor enhance the region's transportation system while protecting the surrounding neighborhoods and businesses.

And so when you are really desperate, start talking about damage that will be done to local business if things don't go your way. Somehow this concern about local business didn't seem to be there when the stadium was sited? And Dinkytown was basically destroyed a few years ago with many businesses going under. And that was ok? Now all of a sudden we see crocodile tears from the U administration about small businesses.

The university community is heavily dependent upon transit. We and our partners are obligated to provide safe and functional access to and from the university campus for the 80,000 people who come to campus daily as well as the half million people who visit the hospital and clinics just off Washington Avenue annually and the hundreds of thousands who come to campus for arts and cultural events and scholarly meetings.

A well-planned Central Corridor line would enhance the university and the surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. After all, it's a decision that we'll have to live with for the next 100 years.

That's right VP O'Brien.

So why don't we have an honest discussion of what would happen if light rail went down Washington Avenue at grade.

The argument always seems to start with the premise that somewhere else is better. Then we move on to the one about the Washington Avenue route being dangerous. Then the U Hospitals will starve.

And of course you can always get consultants, sufficiently well paid, to say anything you want. With current behavior at the U the public should be skeptical of assertions made by the Morrill Hall crew.

How is it that the cost differential estimate by the Met Council for the Northern Route differed from what the University administration claims? It is obvious that anyone hired by the university to do a study on this situation would know the desired outcome.

Yes the U has an image problem, as alluded to in the first paragraph of your article.

There are some pretty good reasons for this. Go over to Northrup and read the inscription on the building and think about it.

Posted by William Gleason at 12:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Some of them actually make more than assistant football coaches:

Cicchetti, Dante $384,851

Kehoe, Patrick James $321,172

Tonry, Michael H $300,000

Chari, Varadarajan V $295,605

Wolf, Susan M $286,400

Kocherlakota, Narayana $277,221

Rios-Rull, Jose Victor $275,000

Rustichini, Aldo $275,000

Kehoe, Timothy J $270,000

Sainfort, Francois $265,000.00

Emma Carew has a nice spreadsheet at the Daily. Unfortunately Minnpost misread it, but I'm sure this will be corrected. They had the top salary listed as $169 K - but that is only for an assistant professor..

[Added later: Curiously they removed the $169K figure but did not replace it with the $385K. Maybe they figured the casual reader might think it was a misprint?]

Also gender equity comes to mind. It appears that there is only one woman on this list. Maybe next year we should raise Julie Jacko's salary to this range. After all, she is a star, so we've been told. And poor Francois Sainfort. If he had this information last October, he could have negotiated a higher salary. When he starts working full time, he can argue for a big raise, too.

[My apologies for being so cynical, but recent events around here have just been too much.]

Posted by William Gleason at 05:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)