Student Budget Advisory Committee: Winter 2006 Quartly Report

PDF: http://www.dartmouth.edu/%7Ebelinsky/SBAC_W06.pdf

SBAC:
Student Budget Advisory Committee

Winter 2006
Quarterly Report
2
May 2006

The Student Budget Advisory Committee (SBAC) is charged with examining the college budget
and discussing issues related to financial planning for Dartmouth. The twelve student
representatives, selected by the Membership and Internal Affairs Committee of the Student
Assembly (SA), meet directly with officials who make many of the decisions about spending
priorities for the institution and serve as a link between the administration and the student body
on matters related to the College's budget.

The committee meets approximately every three weeks with the Provost, the Executive Vice-
President, and the Dean of the College in order to help give the administration a sense of student
views and concerns on matters related to the budget. This past winter, the SA resolved that the
committee would produce a quarterly report to make public what the committee has done and
hopes to do in the future.

This report is divided into two sections. The first section provides a summary of the committee’s
discussion during the 2005-2006 academic year. We have divided this summary into 4 sections.
The first, titled “Broad institutional goals,” examines the areas that should guide the College’s
annual budget and decision-making. The second section examines the “culture of spending” at
the College. The third section provides comments about what we feel to be successful high-cost
College programs and the fourth section details some minor projects towards which we believe
the College should allocate funds. The second section of the report outlines the SBAC’s goals
for the remainder of the academic year.

The goal of this report is twofold. First, we hope to improve the transparency of the budgeting
process as it affects student life and academics at the College. Second, we hope that it helps us
achieve our mission of serving as a link between students and administrators in regards to issues
that involve the budget. If you have any questions or comments about the material contained in
the report, you are encouraged to blitz your thoughts to the committee.

We hope you enjoy the report and look forward to receiving your feedback.

Sincerely,

The Student Budget Advisory Committee

Christopher Bertrand ’07, Greg Boguslavsky ’09, Erin Emery ’06, Sonia Faruqi ’07, Lense
Gebre-Mariam ’09, Kyle Joseph ’07, Dan Killeen ’09, Russell Lane ’06, Leslie Shribman ’08,
Dax Tejera ’07, Alex Tonelli ’06, Steven Ueng ’09, Peter Weyrens ‘06
3

Student Budget Advisory Committee report: Winter 2006

PART I: Summary of main discussion points

1. Broad institutional goal: focus on academics

The committee proposed and discussed what it considered the broad institutional goals of
the College and the critical factors that should guide its budget. Difficulty arose when trying to
define and agree on the core of the "Dartmouth experience." The goals listed below are not
intended to be boilerplate, but to provide a sense of the priorities that committee members
conveyed to the administration. The consensus among committee members was that academics
should have the highest priority when making tough decisions about the budget.

Small class sizes

Members cited the promise of small class sizes and one-on-one interaction with
professors as reasons they were attracted to Dartmouth. It is considered to be an institutional
strength. Based on committee members’ own experiences and anecdotal evidence, it seems that
some departments have more completely addressed the problem of small class sizes than others.
The committee believes it is important for the college to address these differences. Some
departments seem overstaffed while others are unable to meet student demand for their classes.
Lack of office space, caution in adding tenure-track positions because of their permanence, and
difficulty in forecasting student demand were cited as reasons that certain departments are
oversubscribed with students and majors. Improving the overall student-to-faculty ratio does not
go far enough; Dartmouth needs to hire additional professors in specific departments.

Keeping and attracting the best professors

This goal closely relates to the goal of small class sizes. This is not intended to cause
controversy over the definition of the "best professors," and spark a debate about research versus
classroom teaching. Rather, students desire professors that are experts in their fields and good
teachers. Dartmouth should continue to recruit and offer appropriate incentives to insure that
this is the case. Members are generally satisfied with the quality of their instructors, but
concerned that some departments may not have the resources to hire enough professors to meet
standards of small class sizes.

Liberal Arts curriculum

The committee addressed the direction of the Liberal Arts curriculum. Members
criticized the decision to cut the Speech Department. Speech and rhetoric have a long history as
a being part of the liberal arts. They also have a long and particularly proud history at
Dartmouth dating back to Daniel Webster. Speech classes were extraordinarily overenrolled
every term before the lone professor resigned citing lack of administrative support. This seems
4
to be one instance where the administration’s actions have crippled the liberal arts at Dartmouth
in the face of high demand.
Committee members also expressed concern about the required Writing courses that
students are to take during their freshman year. The student sentiment surrounding the writing
program is that it is inadequate and that more needs to be done. Many Dartmouth students
graduate with sub-par writing skills. There has been a lot of debate in the Dartmouth community
about the level of writing and communication skills that students possess. Students on the
committee expressed that Dartmouth ought to pay closer attention to and prioritize higher the
improvement of these areas.
One specific issue brought up was the possible discontinuation of the Departmental
Editor Program (DEP). DEP was started seven years ago and has been funded continually by an
alumnus as a pilot program in Art History, Religion and Mathematics. The program has received
high praise by the individual departments and students. The alumnus, who originally planned to
stop funding after this year, has agreed to fund another year of the DEP, with the expectation that
this year will be used for the administration to see if there is any way that the College can fund it.
The administration does not want to extend the program citing that it would have to be applied
universally, a cost it believes is too high. While there is debate, some students felt that it was an
instance of a proven academic program starving for lack of funds—a disconcerting trend for
College priorities.

2. Over-programming, Residential Ed. and the Culture of Spending

The committee discussed a perception that there seems to be limited funds for academic
departments and athletic programs while many student-life related programs with limited or no
impact on student life persist. A main example of this can be seen with what is viewed as
superfluous Residential Education spending. Further, there is perhaps an even larger institutional
issue in that most student organizations seem to spend money in order to keep or grow their
budget for the next fiscal year. For example, many committee members noted that student
organizations embrace the mentality have having to continually prove to COSO and other
funding organizations that they need more money, fostering a culture of frivolous spending. This
is a problem in the organizational funding process that needs to be addressed. Committee
members discussed potential ways to mitigate this problem, including allowing organizational
budgets to roll over from year to year, and also potentially capping the student activities fee at its
current level.

Over-programming

Committee members mentioned they felt "bombarded" by the amount of programming at
the College. To some, it feels "artificially" created. Many have the impression that groups are
forced to produce programming, even if it will be ineffective.
They also have the impression that College offices themselves are producing much of the
over-programming. While oftentimes there is a blurred distinction between student-generated
and college-generated programming, the result nevertheless is a series of poorly attended
programs that sum up to being very expensive.
5
It would seem to be more beneficial to dedicate fewer resources to encouraging such
programming so that the programs that do come out will be more productive and have greater
impact. One student presented the complex web diagram of the responsibilities of the staff in the
Student Activities Office. The committee overwhelmingly stated its feeling that there are too
many salaried administrators whose jobs are dedicated to "programming" and "student life."
Oftentimes, student life programming does not directly improve student life. Committee
members stated that while it is important to have funding available for programming if students
seek to use it, there don't need to be as many administrators bringing it to fruition.
A culture of spending further contributes to over-programming. There was
overwhelming sentiment that there is a culture of spending that encourages organizations to
spend money frivolously. Groups or individuals feel that their budgets will be cut if they do not
spend their full budget, and therefore spend or create programming that is not useful for the
purpose of claiming that they need more money for the next year. Discussion of this
phenomenon in greater depth follows below.

Residential Education

Residential education was one of the main areas where over programming, and thus
overspending, was seen. Community directors and UGAs were commonly pointed to as
producing unproductive programming. Many students expressed that the number of UGAs and
Community directors ought to be reduced, especially for upper-class and mixed-class housing.
It seems that residential education is an attempt to falsely create community when
structurally there are issues that make it difficult for residence halls to foster closer-knit
communities. While the committee did not seek to voice an opinion on the D-plan, it recognizes
that one of the downfalls is the constantly changing dormitory environment. Throwing
programming funds at residential education is an attempt to throw money at a problem that runs
deeper than holding programming events. Rather than asking the question about how to improve
in an area where we are structurally disadvantaged, the priority of residential education should be
reduced and funds should be taken away from this area.
The committee unanimously denounced the programming quota that UGAs are given.
Repeatedly, students referred to pizza boxes being left in the hallway as a salient image of how
programming quotas are filled. Several students mentioned that upperclassmen have no interest
in going to events, when the freshmen on the committee chimed in that they feel their class does
not attend events either. UGAs and community directors are an area where students on the
committee felt the college could freeze at its current level as dorms increase. Funding for
community barbeques, tee-shirts, educational events or feeds of any kind are generally wasted.
In sum, the committee advocated a strong cutback in the spending on residential
education and a reallocation of funds to any of the other purposes discussed in this report. The
committee has made this area a priority for the next quarter to discuss in further depth and
hopefully make recommendations for cutbacks.

3. Building on successful areas

While the purpose of SBAC is to identify issues for budgetary improvement, it does not
seek to ignore the areas where the College has done a commendable job and should be
6
encouraged in continuing to pursue its agenda. The committee felt that this is the case with the
areas of Athletics, Financial aid, Off-Campus programs, Computer services and Career services.

Athletics

As this committee was formed after the College decided to cut the swim teams in 2002
because of budgetary pressure, athletics remain an issue for the committee. Members and
administrators involved in the discussion supported maintaining the current varsity programs.
Most debate focused instead on the direction of the club sports program. There are two main
aspects to the issue. The first is use of athletic facilities, such as Thompson Arena and Scully-
Fahey Field, second is the level of funding provided by the College. Club sports are increasingly
popular, straining current resources. A key question is whether the College should add more
club sports as they are demanded, or limit the growth of the number of teams.
This year a discretionary sum was given to the club sports program which by all reports
was immensely helpful in alleviating their funding problem. This is a step in the right direction
that the college recognizes the need to aid club sports programs financially. The committee
encourages the continuation and escalation of this financial support, as well as the continued
attention to the facilities availability problems.

Financial aid

The college clearly devotes a considerable amount of its budget to Financial Aid. The
students on the committee lauded Dartmouth’s commitment to financial aid and encouraged it to
improve the amount of aid it offers vis-à-vis its peers. While Dartmouth is in a good position, it
might consider taking a stronger leadership role in this area that is fundamental to Dartmouth’s
progress. Specifically, members cited that increasing the proportion of grants compared to loans
would be a better step rather than offering financial aid to more people.

Off-Campus programs

Members reacted strongly to discussion of Off-Campus programs. Provost Scherr and
Executive Vice-President Keller explained that the costs of Off-Campus programs are ballooning
for several reasons. The two salient ones were exchange rate issues, and the fees that other
universities have begun to charge American schools. Despite this, the administrators confirmed
that Dartmouth would continue its position as a leader in Off-Campus programs citing
Dartmouth’s clear distinction from even our closest competitors in this area. Students on the
committee concurred with these sentiments and encouraged the administrators to continue the
development of these programs in spite of the growing costs. They called the programs “one of
the best parts of the College” and expressed that the programs were a “good place for money to
go.”

Computer services

Students suggested that Dartmouth’s long-standing position as a technological innovator
and as a technology-friendly environment has been preserved. The committee expressed that
7
Dartmouth ought to continue to pursue this reputation. Specific examples of current progress
include Voice over IP telephony and DarTV.

Career services

Many students discussed a desire for “better” Career services, without a consensus of
what that would mean. What is clear is that the College is concerned with providing effective
Career services and should continue to explore ways to have it be more effective. Members
proposed a number of improvements, which would all involve further investigation. These
included more courses on preparation, having a liaison with Tuck, and more staffing or interns
dedicated to individually helping students with their job search.

4. Line Items

The committee promoted two specific line items for addition to the budget.

Greenprint

The committee promoted an expansion of Greenprint stations. This proposal has been
approved, and the College has decided to add four new stations with advice from members of the
committee on their location. The committee applauds this step to directly improve a problem
without much hesitation.

Restroom supplies

The committee discussed the fact that toilet seat covers do not exist at Dartmouth. The
administrators noted the issue and indicated they would look into the cost of implementation.
8

Part II: Goals for the term: Spring 2006

The committee recognizes the time crunch that occurs in the spring term. There are only
two meetings and potentially a third on our agenda for the remainder of the term. While over the
winter we elucidated many broadly defined areas for improvement, this term we would like to
limit our priorities to an agenda that might be accomplished before the end of the year.

Priority 1: Small-scale improvement areas

Members identified a short list of small-scale improvement areas where funds ought to go
when they do become available or after cuts from other areas. These are not major projects or
directions for the College to take. However, we would like to see funding moved into these
programs. Members hope that this list will provide place where some tangible results of this
committee can be seen. While we do not hope to discuss each of these points at length, we
present them as good options for placing discretionary or relocated funds. Improvement in any
one of these areas would be a success.

a) Permanent Club Sports allocation: This year President Wright issued a discretionary
fund of $30,000 to the Club Sports office. This money was put into a fund for teams that
reached the postseason. This fund aided every team that made the postseason in a
substantial way. At the same time, the funding neither permanent nor enough. It is an
excellent start. The committee wishes to encourage the administration to continue this by
institutionalizing a permanent increase in the funding that the club sports receive and
raising the overall dollar amount.

b) Additional professors in popular departments: Anything and everything should be done
to hire more professors in areas of need. We understand that the College is already
addressing this issue, but the need cannot be stressed enough. At the same time, it should
be mentioned that caution should be used about hiring professors in areas that are already
adequately staffed.

c) Speech Department: The speech program was wildly popular and successful while it was
here. Failure to support the program led to the resignation of the sole Professor, Jim
Kuypers. The committee wishes that the College would make a bold financial
commitment to bring back the Speech Department in a substantial way.

d) Departmental Editor Program (DEP): DEP has existed for seven years because of the
generous contributions of an alumnus. The program in its current form costs about
$100,000 per year. The alumnus started DEP as a pilot project and hoped Dartmouth
would eventually pick up the cost. This year, he decided to cease funding the program
hoping that the school would continue the program. The school did not continue the
program citing that it would need to be applied over the entire school at a prohibitive
cost. The alumnus has decided to fund the program for one more year asking that the
administration take a close look at picking up the tab. The administration ought to
consider funding DEP in its current form, which is not at too great a cost. We do know
9
that students and faculty alike have lauded the program in way that one seldom sees. As
such, it seems imprudent to end a program just because not everyone at the College is
benefiting from it when there are many that do benefit. The committee would like to
look into the feasibility of continuing DEP. Furthermore, the committee hopes to
generate ideas to direct funding towards solutions that will help increase the quality of
student writing at Dartmouth.

e) Career services: Members believe that Career Services does a good job compared to
offices at similar educational institutions. Yet, many feel that Career services should be
improved. With this in mind, the committee would like to brainstorm ideas to provide
funding to the Career services office. It might be useful to discuss with the Career
services director what would be a list of things on his wish list and then have the
committee discuss if any of these projects would seem to provide the type of solutions
students are looking for. The recent backpack to briefcase series would seem to be a
logical starting point for this discussion.

Priority 2: Limit Residential Education spending

The committee unanimously agreed that spending on residential education is far too great
and often fails to serve its intended purpose. The idea of residential spending is to encourage
collaboration between cluster residents and programming is used to help meet these goals. The
committee believes that this aim is not being accomplished, and that attendance and interest in
the residential education programs is minimal. The committee proposes several reasonable
means of addressing this problem.
a) Spread out current Residential Education funds: With the construction of the
McLaughlin Cluster, the College now has a great opportunity to curtail this spending
immediately. The committee suggests that instead of adding new funding and
positions for the McLaughlin Cluster, reorganize the surrounding residential
programming to include the new cluster so that residential education spending need
not increase. This is a critical time for the College to reign in spending, with a very
feasible means of doing so.
b) Cut programs that do not work: The committee suggests that the College develop a
method of surveying to discover the student body’s opinion of the residential
education programs. The committee believes that interest College-wide is rather
minimal. In addition, the College should look at the amount of funding and examine
the idea of spreading out this funding between a greater numbers of clusters.
c) Redirecting, not reinvesting funds: A specific goal of this term would be to find some
funding in residential education and could be moved into one of the areas identified in
priority one. Far too often when one program is cut, funding for it is reinvested into
the same area in way equally unlikely to produce results, because the problem is
systemic. More good could be done by addressing one of the glaring needs and stop
throwing money into unsuccessful areas such as residential education.

10
Priority 3: Continued facilities improvement

The Fitness Center renovation has been an extraordinary success. Committee members
desire to highlight it as an example of a job well done. The renovation responded to student
demand and in fact over-delivered on a promise for a better athletic center. Students feel that
often Dartmouth does just enough to “get by” in comparison to its peers, but the Fitness Center is
different. It is an outstanding facility by any standard. Members hope that the administration
continues to plan improvements to facilities at Dartmouth, for both athletic and academic use, to
the same high standard as the Kresge renovation.
In particular, the administration should note the College’s persistent strength in the Social
Sciences and the increasing popularity of the Club Sports program when planning future
improvements. Administrators citied lack of available facilities for both burgeoning class sizes
in the Social Sciences and as a limitation on Club Sports. Part of any long-term solution for
reducing class sizes in the departments that are overfull will probably include facilities
improvements. The College should not seek a solution that minimally fulfills the requirements,
but one that will allow future leadership. Likewise, future demand from Club Sports should be
considered along with current demand from varsity programs when evaluating improvements to
athletic facilities. Facilities improvements should be in areas where there is demonstrated
student demand, and should be at a level that allows popular programs to expand.