Hampshire said:
wyokoke said:
WestWYOPoke said:
Oh...well there you have it gents. Two current undergraduate students are his source, is there any higher and more reliable source than two 18-24 year olds with probably zero connection to the athletic department? Guess the rest of us should just hang it up...
Yeah, FOUR undergrad students are definitely higher and more reliable than two. There's no way anyone can beat knowing four whole kids. That's just ungodly amounts of knowledge that very few can begin to comprehend
I would just say that yes first hand knowledge unless you are directly shuffling papers in the office? Is a pretty good place to start but of course yaall know everything lol.
You don't exactly make a case for your knowledge or info sources when you wade in with little understanding of FBS CFB, the FCS study that was made, or your general ignorance of recent and current capital investment on the academic side.
Staff salaries and retention are an issue and need to be addressed but so does the somewhat impractical scope of degree programs offered by a school with an enrollment of 13k. Just a cursory look and comparison exposes a lot of fat and poor ROI on the academic side of things.
http://www.laramieboomerang.com/news/local_news/article_0fbdc02c-ab63-11e5-a0bc-b397f5e87fd9.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It's a pretty easy argument to make that UW should trim some fat and redirect these dollars to programs that would build UW's image in select fields. UW should focus on the obvious- Earth and atmospheric sciences, engineering, business and finance, agriculture, pharmacy and nursing (we should probably consider a full dentistry program that could pave the way for a medical school), law, and English and Poli Sci (to support law and graduate retention. Keep them focused and avoid over-specialized intra-disciplines. The money's probably already there, just misallocated and poorly invested.