Re: More from the Z-types

[richard l. kandell]

Bob, did you really expect any different response?  No one can take issue
with wanting to improve almost anything, least of all educational
opportunity/standards.  But whether it is just Mrs. Z, or the University's
PR department, they are doing a p___ poor job of explaining themselves.  You
don't have to go around 6 corners and look under a garbage can cover to draw
the inference from what she says that degrees obtained BZ are not worth the
paper they are written on.  She doesn't even bother to just imply that any
education obtained at UC BZ is something that you can't look anyone in the
eye and be proud of - that is what she actually said (albeit in the reverse)
and that shows a complete disdain for education at UC BZ.  Maybe she is
simply reflecting what she picked up in Columbus - but we don't really need
anyone coming in from Buckeye land and telling us that everything
educational prior to the last 2 years, and the great Zimpher awakening, is
fundamentally worthless.

Just don't expect anyone at the university to agree that is what she said,
even if it simply is.

Richard K.

PS - I note the name David Macejko as Executive Director of the Alumni
Association - is that a recent change?  What happened to the chubby Greek
who was there for years?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Fancher" <address@hidden>
To: "bbforum" <address@hidden>
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 11:06 AM
Subject: [UC Basketball] More from the Z-types


> Further crap from this administration.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <address@hidden>
> To: <address@hidden>
> Cc: <address@hidden>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 10:42 AM
> Subject: Response to your UC is Listening Reference #1381.
>
>
> Dear Bob,
>
> After accessing your e-mail from last week and I sought information that
> spoke specifically to your concerns over the impact of the Huggins
> separation arrangement on tuition. It is my understanding specifics have
yet
> to be determined. Employment agreements between UC employees and the UC
> Administration are not part of our domain, so my comments in this area are
> speculative.
>
> First, we believe a significant portion of this expense is part of an
> existing contract and would not be considered an extraordinary expense.
This
> expense  would be part of budgeted funds. Further, we believe any
> compensation in excess of budgeted amounts would not have meaningful
impact
> on tuition costs.
>
> Your second area of concern affords a more concrete opportunity for
> clarification. The quality of the education you and I received during the
> mid to late 60's has never been questioned by the UC Administration. The
> message from UC, though largely misinterpreted, is that in today's higher
> education environment, for UC to remain viable and become a destination
> point for the brightest and best students, we must aspire to improve on
the
> education we offered students in the past. I hope you will consider the
> significant difference between aspiring to be better and the
> misinterpretation of that goal as a condemnation of the past. Your degree
> and mine has served us well. UC wants to make that value as great as it
can
> be.
>
>
> Sincerely,
> David Macejko, Alumni Office,Exec Dir Alumni Affairs
>
>
>
>
> -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> Original Letter:
>
> Silly to increase tuition when we're paying a coach $3M to go away. What
> other nonsense are we paying for which keeps tuition increasing at an
> extraordinary rate? I paid $750 per year to receive what the current
> administration feels is a mediocre degree in Bus. Ad. in 1965. I'm
> embarassed by our administration. Find another institution to ruin.
Please.
>