7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
1/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
2/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
3/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
4/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
5/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
6/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
7/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
8/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
9/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
10/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
11/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
12/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
13/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
14/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
15/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
16/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
17/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
18/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
19/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
20/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
21/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
22/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
23/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
24/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
25/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
26/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
27/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
28/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
29/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
30/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
31/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
32/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
33/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
34/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
35/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
36/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
37/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
38/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
39/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
40/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
41/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
42/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
43/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
44/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
45/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
46/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
47/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
48/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
49/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
50/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
51/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
52/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
53/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
54/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
55/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
56/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
57/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
58/116
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
59/116
Actual Metrics: Students of ColorSource: Office of Ins@tu@onal Research
59
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
60/116
The BoJom Line The State Appropria2on is 1% of total revenues There will be a drop of 8% in the State appropria2on This is a drop of 1.7% in total revenues. Dollar drop of $46 million
What we get are mee2ngs discussing what academiccuts are needed (see next slide for Presidentsrecommenda2ons in June of 011)
Are furloughs/pay freezes necessary in an ins2tu2on
that has over $600 million of unrestricted reserves,had $175 million prot, $180 million of opera2ng cashows in 010? NO! This conclusion will be conrmedwhen we examine administra2ve costs.
60
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
61/116
61
!"#$%&'!!()(*+,*$ !-&.(&%$/
0*,1%.2,&/32!456786 !986:;
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
62/116
What Should Be Done? The appropria@on is lower, but the magnitude of the cuts, given the
overall university, is not debilita@ng. First, given the level of the reduc@on and the huge reserves, are cuts
really necessary? There are over $600 million of unrestricted netassets. Instead of talking budget cuts, lets talk about reserve levels.
Second, if cuts are to be made, the expense analysis will demonstratethat cuts should be made to administra@on
Third, tui@on increases can be made much lower. Fourth, the State is not broke, as we will see - stop using the State as
an excuse to make cuts. Yes, the appropria@on is lower. But both
the State and University are in strong nancial condi@on, asconrmed by basic ra@o analysis and the outside credit ra@ngagencies:
Reminder: The State Appropria@on is 21% of total revenue for theUniversity of Minnesota
62
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
63/116
State of Minnesota Moodys gives the state an Aa1 ra2ng ( nd highest) Standard & Poors dropped the ra2ng to AA+ from AAA. AA+
is the nd highest ra2ng. This is what S&P did to the UnitedStates.
15 States have AAA ra2ngs from Moodys (AK, DE, GA, IN , IA,MD, MO, NM, NC, SC, TN, TX, UT, T, A). Wisconsin is at Aa
The State of Minnesota has issues with the budget expectedfuture revenues are less than expected future expenses.However, A budget gap is NOT the same as the state being
broke . Stadium for the ikings? If 4-0 instead of 0-4?
63
S l t d St t B d t G C d t Oth St t
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
64/116
Selected State Budget Gaps Compared to Other StatesSource: Center on Budget and Policy Priori@es, une 17, 2011
64
Minnesota Management & Budget:
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
65/116
Minnesota Management & Budget:September 2011 Economic Update
Headline: FY 011 Revenues $355 Million AboveForecast; FY 01 Currently $93 Million Short.
The $355 million is .3% above forecast The $93 million short is for only months, and is 4.4%
below the -month es2mate. Most of the increase in 011 came from
individual income taxes being larger thanexpected
The economy is expected to grow less than wasexpected in the February 011 revenue forecast(last big forecast for the state)
65
Mi t M g t d B dg t
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
66/116
Minnesota Management and BudgetFebruary 2011 Forecast
66
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
67/116
State of Minnesota Tax Distribu@onSource: 2010 State of Michigan Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
67
Minnesota Management and Budget! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
68/116
Minnesota Management and BudgetFebruary 2011 Forecast
68
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!"#
$%#
$"#
%#
"#
%#$"#
$%#
!"#
!%#
$&'" $&(" $&%" $&)" $&*" $&+" $&&" !""" !"$"
,-./012 34,4 5./16. -7 80-9-:;0 ?;?@A;991?-B6 A696C1:19B 69D 5.DC1B EAA5F
!"##$%&'( )(*$ (#+ ,(-(./ 0"%12.%$3$#'%G-:;96= # HI69C1
AA5 J1K$$ J-/106?BL;?B-/>
!""&2 (4+#
S Hi h Ed A i @
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
69/116
State Higher Ed Appropria@onsSource: State Higher Educa@on Execu@ve Officers (SHEEO): April 2011
69
Minnesota has lower higher educa@on appropria@ons than other states The change in appropria@ons has been worse in Minnesota than other
states
Higher Educa@on Appropria@on as % of Tax Revenues
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
70/116
Higher Educa@on Appropria@on as % of Tax RevenuesSource: SHEEO
70
Average = 6.9%Minnesota = 5.9%
St t U l t R t
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
71/116
State Unemployment RatesSource: Bureau of Labor Sta@s@cs
71
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
72/116
Minnesota and Na@onal Unemployment Rates
72
Is Minnesota a High Tax State?
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
73/116
Is Minnesota a High Tax State?Source: Tax Founda@on, 2011Low Numbers = Low Taxes
73
Ed @ l AJ i t
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
74/116
Educa@onal AJainmentSource: US Census Bureau, 2008
74
University of Minnesota Expense
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
75/116
University of Minnesota ExpenseDistribu@on in Dollars
Source: Audited Financial Statements
75
E Di ib @ P f T l
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
76/116
Expense Distribu@on: Percent of Total
76
Instruc@on and research relate to the core mission of the university Public service, academic support, student service, and ins@tu@onal
support are mostly administra@ve func@ons
Di i f E
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
77/116
Discussion of Expenses No maJer what is going on, the percentage devoted
to instruc@on should never decline The next slides have generic descrip@ons of the
categories In general, public service, academic support, and
ins@tu@onal support, despite their names, are mostlyadministra@on
There was a signicant increase in ins@tu@onalsupport (upper administra@on). If this was justcategoriza@on changes, then the administra@on needs
to explain what occurred The following data will show that administra@ve costs
have been increasing much faster than instruc@onalcosts. This needs to be explained.
77
G i O @ E C i
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
78/116
78
Generic Opera@ng Expense Categories1) Instruc@on: Faculty, Lecturers, Adjuncts, Dept. Heads,
Dept. Secretaries, Graduate Assistants, DistanceEduca2on & off-campus sites) Research: Ins2tutes & Centers, Bioinforma2cs, Matching
Funds, New Faculty Awards, Faculty ResearchFellowships, Geospa2al Research
3) Public Service: Clinics and centers, radio sta2on,Marke2ng
4) Academic Support: College Deans, Library, Doctoral
Fellowships, Accredita2on (NCATE, Regional, etc.),Extended program administra2on, FacultyDevelopment Center, Honors Program, AcademicAdvising
Expense Categories (cont)
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
79/116
79
Expense Categories (cont)
5) Ins@tu@onal Support: Presidents Office, Business & Finance,
University Communica2ons, Academic Affairs,Advancement, Public Safety, Legal Affairs, HumanResources, Governmental Rela2ons, EnrollmentManagement, Alumni Rela2ons
6) Student Services: Admissions Office, Financial Aid Office,
Office of the Registrar, Learning Center, Student Services,Campus Life, Student Center, Band7) Opera@on of the Plant: Physical Plant Opera2ons & Campus
Plan, Purchasing, Architect & Engineering, UniversityHouse, Grounds, U2li2es, Custodial
8) Auxiliary Expense: Dorms, dining, bookstore, athle@cs9) Scholarships: Funded, Graduate Fellowships10) Other: Debt Re2rement, Deprecia2on, Miscellaneous
Instruc@on Versus Administra@ve Costs:
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
80/116
Instruc@on Versus Administra@ve Costs:2002 to 2010
80
Admin Func@ons = Sum of ins@tu@onal support, academicsupport, student services, and public service
Source: Audited nancial statements
Percentage Changes in Major Expenses:
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
81/116
Percentage Changes in Major Expenses:2002 to 2010
81
Na@onal Report on Administra@ve Costs in Higher
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
82/116
Na@onal Report on Administra@ve Costs in HigherEduca@on: Delta Project 2010
Source: Trends in College Spending, 1998- 008.Released July 8, 010.h p://www.deltacostproject.org/
The share of spending going to pay forinstruc2on has consistently declined whenrevenues decline, rela2ve to growth in spendingin academic and student support andadministra2on. This erosion persists even whenrevenues rebound, meaning that over 2me there
has been a gradual shi of resources away frominstruc2on and towards general administra2veand academic infrastructure.
82
D lt P j t 2011 R t
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
83/116
Delta Project: 2011 Report Released September 14, 011, analyzing 1999- 009 Unlike the across-the-board cuts seen in past recessions,public four-year ins2tu2ons maintained spending on
instruc2on and student services by shi ing spending awayfrom administra2on and deferring maintenance. Thisapproach indicates a more strategic approach to budget
cuts than in previous recessions. The report includes new data on employee compensa2on,showing large increases in part-2me and graduate teachingassistants and virtually at spending for employee salaries,but large increases in spending for benets. Unlike other
spending areas, where private ins2tu2ons outspent publicins2tu2ons, employee benets have increased signicantlymore in public ins2tu2ons than in private ins2tu2ons
83
The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
84/116
yAdministra@ve University and Why it MaJers
84
Benjamin Ginsberg of Johns Hopkins, July 011 From Inside Higher Educa2on, 7/14/ 011:Ginsberg bemoans the expansion over the past 30
years of what he calls "administra2ve blight" aspersonied by what he characterizes as an army of"deanlets " and " deanlings ."
By virtue of their sheer number and their managerialrather than academic orienta2on, Ginsberg argues,these administrators have served to marginalize thefaculty in carrying out tasks related to personnel and
curriculum that once sat squarely in their domain. In prose that is by turns piquant, sarcas2c and largely
dismissive of many administrators
Na@onal Trends In Spending:
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
85/116
Na@onal Trends In Spending:Source: ohn Cur@s, Na@onal AAUP
85
Administra@ve Salaries
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
86/116
Administra@ve SalariesSource: mndaily.com, 1/18/2010
86
Percentage Changes in Expense Items. 2002 to 2010
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
87/116
g g pTwin Ci@es Only
Source: IPEDS
87
IPEDS = Integrated Postsecondary Educa@on Data System Required Federal data from the US Department of Educa@on These results conrm the nancial statement results for the en@re System
A Different Expense Breakdown
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
88/116
A Different Expense BreakdownSource: Notes to Audited Financial Statements
88
63-64 cents of every dollar is spent on personnel, though thepercentage has declined
We will see that instruc@onal salaries are not the majority of
those costs
Breakdown of Instruc@onal Costs
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
89/116
Breakdown of Instruc@onal CostsSource: Audited Financial Statements
89
This is very troubling and revealing Revealing: instruc@onal salaries are less than 20% of total expenses Troubling: instruc@onal salaries are taking a bigger hit than other salaries Other costs include services and supplies
Breakdown of Research Costs
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
90/116
Breakdown of Research CostsSource: Audited Financial Statements
90
The commitment to research costs has remained steady, asthese costs have increased slightly more than total expenses
The % of total increased from 20.0% in 2006 to 21.6% in 2010
Peers: Instruc@onal Costs as Percent of Total Expenses
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
91/116
Peers: Instruc@onal Costs as Percent of Total ExpensesSource: IPEDS 2009 Data
91
Average without Minnesota = 30.7%Minnesota = 24.8 %
Peers: Ins@tu@onal Support as Percent of Total Expenses
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
92/116
Source: IPEDS 2009 Data
92
Average without Minnesota = 5.5%Minnesota is highest at 9.4%
Discussion of IPEDS Peer Data
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
93/116
Discussion of IPEDS Peer Data IPEDS breakdown of expenses is not available for 010 yet
For the peers with hospital (pa2ent) costs, those costswere removed from total expenses (not the same asmedical school costs)
This data uses Minnesota Twin Ci2es only The peer ins2tu2ons were iden2ed by both the faculty
(Faculty Consulta2ve Commi ee Metrics andMeasurements Subcommi ee) and administra2on
To see if there was any categoriza2on issues, academicsupport was also examined. As a % of total expenses,Minnesota was the highest of the group at 15.9%; theaverage is 8.4%
UM spends less on instruc@on than most of its peers UM spends more on administra@on than all of its peers
93
Faculty Salaries By Rank: Twin Ci@es
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
94/116
Faculty Salaries By Rank: Twin Ci@es
94
Source: Both IPEDS and AAUP Salary Survey
Faculty Salaries in Context
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
95/116
Faculty Salaries in Context
95
Faculty Salaries at Other Campuses
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
96/116
Faculty Salaries at Other CampusesSource: 2010 AAUP Salary Survey
96
Faculty Salary Increases vs. Tui@on Increases
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
97/116
y y @vs. Ins@tu@onal Support: 2002 to 2011
Source: IPEDS 97
Faculty Salaries vs. Tui@on vs. Ins@tu@onal
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
98/116
ySupport Graphically
(S&B = Salary and Benets)
98
Faculty Salaries vs Peers
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
99/116
Faculty Salaries vs. PeersSource: 2010 AAUP Salary Survey
99
Number of Employees
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
100/116
Source: Office of Ins@tu@onal ResearchEmployee Headcount October 2005 to 2010
100
The inferences are the same if 2006 to 2010 is used, or if just TC is used It is informa@ve that the largest change is in the number of administrators Why is there such an increase in the number of administrators, while the
changes in full @me faculty and students is much smaller?
Notes on Employees
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
101/116
Notes on Employees Faculty = Includes both tenured, tenure track, and non
tenure track employees, but excludes faculty in primarilyadministra2ve roles. This includes visi2ng, clinical, adjunct,and Regent's faculty.
Professional = Examples include Lecturer, ResearchAssociate, and Teaching Specialist
Administra2ve = Examples include Presidents, Chancellors,Deans, and Directors Civil Service = Excludes Bargaining Unit employees Bargaining Unit = Examples include AFSCME and Teamsters Graduate Assistants = Examples include Teaching Assistants
and Research Assistants Professionals in Training = Examples include Post-Doctoral
Associates, Medical Residents, and
101
Class Size for Twin Ci@es
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
102/116
@Source: Common Data Set
102
There does seem to be a subtle shi in class size, especially in thenumber of very large classes
The next slide will analyze the percentage of sec@ons in each group
Class Size: Percent of Class Size Groups
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
103/116
Source: Common Data Set
103
Athle@c Overview
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
104/116
Athle@c Overview
104
Source for all athle@c data: EADA or Equity in Athle@cs Data Analysis from the US
Department of Educa@on
USA Today Database on Intercollegiate athle@cs
Athle@c Spending in Context
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
105/116
Athle@c Spending in Context
105
Breakdown of Athle@c Spending
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
106/116
Source: EADA (Equity in Athle@cs Data Analysis)
106
These are enormous increases in spending There may be different categoriza@on or accoun@ng issues with
football, but these type of increases need to be explained
Different Breakdown of Athle@c Spending( hl l )
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
107/116
Source: EADA (Equity in Athle@cs Data Analysis)
107
Breakdown of Expenses per USA Today
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
108/116
p p y
108
Discussion of Athle@c Expenses
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
109/116
Discussion of Athle@c Expenses The evidence reveals very large increases in
spending over the last 5 years Administra2ve and coaches salaries have
increased much faster than faculty and othersalaries
Team travel, uniforms and equipment haveincreased a total of $4 million over 5 years. Wow. This needs to be explained and jus2ed Guarantees are payments from UM to lower-
division teams for home games at Minnesotathat . . .
109
Athle@c Salaries in Context
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
110/116
Athle@c Salaries in Context
110
Athle@c Revenues
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
111/116
Source: USA Today
111
Discussion of Athle@c Revenues
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
112/116
Discussion of Athle@c Revenues Direct ins@tu@onal support are generally payments from the core
University (though most administra@ons deny this). This payment diddecline, but was s@ll almost $3 million in 2010 $3.29 million is a lot of OTHER Both the EADA and USA Today report total revenues miraculously
equaling total expenses each year. There are some non-cash items
involved, and this makes interpreta@on of total revenues difficult. Total expenses in both years matched with both data sources; USA
Today includes indirect ins@tu@onal support, which EADA excludes,as do I. This is likely the alloca@on of the presidents @me and otherallocated costs.
EADA reports football revenues of $32 million for 2010; however,@cket revenues for all sports was only $21 million. There are otherrevenues, but it is not clear how that much gets allocated to football.
112
The Big Ten Conference
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
113/116
gSource: EADA (Equity in Athle@cs Data Analysis)
113
Big Ten Football Revenues
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
114/116
gSource: EADA (Equity in Athle@cs Data Analysis)
114
Average w/o Minn. = $41.5 MMinnesota = $32.3 M
Conclusions
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
115/116
The University of Minnesota is in strong nancial condi@on. Thisconclusion is supported by independent third par@es. Variousnancial ra@os and cash ows support this conclusion as well
It is clear that there has been an increase in administra@ve costs,and a decline in the propor@on of instruc@onal costs over @me;this nancial evidence is supported by the employment data. Thepeer data on administra@ve costs is not aJering to the U
Lets dispose of a few myths: The State appropria@on is not the majority revenue source, as some maybelieve; for the U it is 21%
Faculty salaries are not 75% of total costs; less than 20% in reality It is not faculty salaries that is causing tui@on to increase administra@ve
costs are the main culprit
Faculty are generally lower paid than faculty at peer ins@tu@ons Class sizes are increasing at some level over the last several years Athle@c spending is not high when compared to total expenses,
but it has been increasing signicantly over the last several years
115
Aspira@ons
7/29/2019 Financial Analysis of the University of Minnesota 2011
116/116
p @ Change the conversa2on instead of gh2ng over which
academic programs to cut, talk about reserves. Then,ensure that administra2on cuts are discussed up front. Theincrease in the number and cost of administra2on isalarming, and it must be addressed rst. The newPresident stated: When the provost arrives, he or she willlead the conversa+on around to focus on academic programs mndaily.com 9/ 6/11
As faculty, we should be skep2cal and persistent indemanding that the most resources necessary are beingcommi ed to the key academic and research missions ofUM
The response that we should be lucky to have our jobsneeds to be rejected; public higher educa2on is a publicgood and we need to stand up for the role of higher