UC DavisTruth be told, I’m actually a big college football fan. In fact, I spent much of yesterday watching the first full day of college football. With that said, I also think that most universities place too much of a priority on things such as their football program, stadiums, etc. It is one thing for the big programs with huge endowments to spend millions on it, but for the average school, their sports programs is not a net revenue generator.
In any case, I don’t have a general problem building new facilities and stadiums, however it is interesting when a university has no trouble finding say $31 million to build a new stadium, but cannot find a few million to improve the salaries of some of their employees who are making meager wages at best. That is where I start to have a bit of a problem with our priorities.
Now you’ll argue with me, if you’re so inclined, that the money comes from different places, that a large amount of the money was raised privately, that some of the money actually did come from student fee hikes, and I don’t argue that a bit. But it also proves my point–we find ways to fund new stadiums, we find ways not to raise the wages and health care benefits for workers.
It’s the same at any level, we find sponsors to construct new gyms and stadiums at all levels of athletics from junior high to high school to college to pros. But when it comes to raising money for things that make a difference in people’s lives, we never seem to quite find the money.
And gain I say, I love college football, but if you can find and raise $31 million for a football stadium at UC Davis, which is not going to generate huge revenue for the university. Can we not find an additional million to help those workers achieve their goal of being university employees? Do they deserve any less than the football players and the soccer players and the others who will utilize the new facility? It’s all a matter of priorities…
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Alot of the employees of Sodexho would not be hired by the University. In addition to students, Sodexho has programs to utilize various segments of the workforce that the University would never hire.
Alot of the employees of Sodexho would not be hired by the University. In addition to students, Sodexho has programs to utilize various segments of the workforce that the University would never hire.
Alot of the employees of Sodexho would not be hired by the University. In addition to students, Sodexho has programs to utilize various segments of the workforce that the University would never hire.
Alot of the employees of Sodexho would not be hired by the University. In addition to students, Sodexho has programs to utilize various segments of the workforce that the University would never hire.
UC Davis is the only UC that does not have this agreement. As an alum, all I can say, is what a shame! And now, the $31 million dollar stadium…not to mention the huge salaries that administrators get…
What a disgrace!
UC Davis is the only UC that does not have this agreement. As an alum, all I can say, is what a shame! And now, the $31 million dollar stadium…not to mention the huge salaries that administrators get…
What a disgrace!
UC Davis is the only UC that does not have this agreement. As an alum, all I can say, is what a shame! And now, the $31 million dollar stadium…not to mention the huge salaries that administrators get…
What a disgrace!
UC Davis is the only UC that does not have this agreement. As an alum, all I can say, is what a shame! And now, the $31 million dollar stadium…not to mention the huge salaries that administrators get…
What a disgrace!
“But when it comes to raising money for things that make a difference in people’s lives, we never seem to quite find the money.”
Your 100% wrong, you can’t not teach many of the skills young people will need in this century if you do not support facilities that allow those activities to happen they will have a much smaller chance to learn at the k-12 level.
We have to teach our kids how to compete, how to work in teams, how to be leaders and how to follow. What better place to teach kids those essential 21st century skills than either on a sports field or working on as a team on the school play.
I do agree that UCD should focus on having great programs for the students, and good salaries for the sodexho works.
But blaming their plight on the Football or soccer teams is wrong.
“But when it comes to raising money for things that make a difference in people’s lives, we never seem to quite find the money.”
Your 100% wrong, you can’t not teach many of the skills young people will need in this century if you do not support facilities that allow those activities to happen they will have a much smaller chance to learn at the k-12 level.
We have to teach our kids how to compete, how to work in teams, how to be leaders and how to follow. What better place to teach kids those essential 21st century skills than either on a sports field or working on as a team on the school play.
I do agree that UCD should focus on having great programs for the students, and good salaries for the sodexho works.
But blaming their plight on the Football or soccer teams is wrong.
“But when it comes to raising money for things that make a difference in people’s lives, we never seem to quite find the money.”
Your 100% wrong, you can’t not teach many of the skills young people will need in this century if you do not support facilities that allow those activities to happen they will have a much smaller chance to learn at the k-12 level.
We have to teach our kids how to compete, how to work in teams, how to be leaders and how to follow. What better place to teach kids those essential 21st century skills than either on a sports field or working on as a team on the school play.
I do agree that UCD should focus on having great programs for the students, and good salaries for the sodexho works.
But blaming their plight on the Football or soccer teams is wrong.
“But when it comes to raising money for things that make a difference in people’s lives, we never seem to quite find the money.”
Your 100% wrong, you can’t not teach many of the skills young people will need in this century if you do not support facilities that allow those activities to happen they will have a much smaller chance to learn at the k-12 level.
We have to teach our kids how to compete, how to work in teams, how to be leaders and how to follow. What better place to teach kids those essential 21st century skills than either on a sports field or working on as a team on the school play.
I do agree that UCD should focus on having great programs for the students, and good salaries for the sodexho works.
But blaming their plight on the Football or soccer teams is wrong.
sigh… I am sure it was just the ridiculous heat or just your disappointment over the Aggie loss that compelled you to post this. Sadly, it makes no sense.
Linking a football stadium which was largely funded by alumni support and student fees with the Sodexho wage hike is just wrong.
Students were given a choice, and they voted to increase their fees to pay for the stadium (as well as the ARC and other facilities).
The nonsensical Sodexho protests simply demanded more money to come from Santa Claus. If the supporters of the increase had been honest and told students the significant cost that the students would have to pay to give the protesters all that they wanted, I really doubt many students would have showed up in support of the workers (or to leave Iraq, depending on which what they were actually chanting).
In short- I declare shenanigans. If the workers are worth having a pay hike, great, let the students know they are going to subsidize the hike and give them a choice in the matter. As entertaining as the protests were, they simply don’t compare with even a losing game at the new stadium.
I think people put their money in the right place- the new stadium is a good choice.
sigh… I am sure it was just the ridiculous heat or just your disappointment over the Aggie loss that compelled you to post this. Sadly, it makes no sense.
Linking a football stadium which was largely funded by alumni support and student fees with the Sodexho wage hike is just wrong.
Students were given a choice, and they voted to increase their fees to pay for the stadium (as well as the ARC and other facilities).
The nonsensical Sodexho protests simply demanded more money to come from Santa Claus. If the supporters of the increase had been honest and told students the significant cost that the students would have to pay to give the protesters all that they wanted, I really doubt many students would have showed up in support of the workers (or to leave Iraq, depending on which what they were actually chanting).
In short- I declare shenanigans. If the workers are worth having a pay hike, great, let the students know they are going to subsidize the hike and give them a choice in the matter. As entertaining as the protests were, they simply don’t compare with even a losing game at the new stadium.
I think people put their money in the right place- the new stadium is a good choice.
sigh… I am sure it was just the ridiculous heat or just your disappointment over the Aggie loss that compelled you to post this. Sadly, it makes no sense.
Linking a football stadium which was largely funded by alumni support and student fees with the Sodexho wage hike is just wrong.
Students were given a choice, and they voted to increase their fees to pay for the stadium (as well as the ARC and other facilities).
The nonsensical Sodexho protests simply demanded more money to come from Santa Claus. If the supporters of the increase had been honest and told students the significant cost that the students would have to pay to give the protesters all that they wanted, I really doubt many students would have showed up in support of the workers (or to leave Iraq, depending on which what they were actually chanting).
In short- I declare shenanigans. If the workers are worth having a pay hike, great, let the students know they are going to subsidize the hike and give them a choice in the matter. As entertaining as the protests were, they simply don’t compare with even a losing game at the new stadium.
I think people put their money in the right place- the new stadium is a good choice.
sigh… I am sure it was just the ridiculous heat or just your disappointment over the Aggie loss that compelled you to post this. Sadly, it makes no sense.
Linking a football stadium which was largely funded by alumni support and student fees with the Sodexho wage hike is just wrong.
Students were given a choice, and they voted to increase their fees to pay for the stadium (as well as the ARC and other facilities).
The nonsensical Sodexho protests simply demanded more money to come from Santa Claus. If the supporters of the increase had been honest and told students the significant cost that the students would have to pay to give the protesters all that they wanted, I really doubt many students would have showed up in support of the workers (or to leave Iraq, depending on which what they were actually chanting).
In short- I declare shenanigans. If the workers are worth having a pay hike, great, let the students know they are going to subsidize the hike and give them a choice in the matter. As entertaining as the protests were, they simply don’t compare with even a losing game at the new stadium.
I think people put their money in the right place- the new stadium is a good choice.
Many students do not actually pay student fees – their parents do. I know the students were allowed to vote on the $31 million football stadium, but the parents were not given a choice. I assume the parents would have voted a resounding NO!
A $31 million computer lab focusing on SAP and Oracle database skills and teaching 400-500 students per year would contibute much more than a grand stand for Larry Vanderhoef and 45-50 football players.
Many students do not actually pay student fees – their parents do. I know the students were allowed to vote on the $31 million football stadium, but the parents were not given a choice. I assume the parents would have voted a resounding NO!
A $31 million computer lab focusing on SAP and Oracle database skills and teaching 400-500 students per year would contibute much more than a grand stand for Larry Vanderhoef and 45-50 football players.
Many students do not actually pay student fees – their parents do. I know the students were allowed to vote on the $31 million football stadium, but the parents were not given a choice. I assume the parents would have voted a resounding NO!
A $31 million computer lab focusing on SAP and Oracle database skills and teaching 400-500 students per year would contibute much more than a grand stand for Larry Vanderhoef and 45-50 football players.
Many students do not actually pay student fees – their parents do. I know the students were allowed to vote on the $31 million football stadium, but the parents were not given a choice. I assume the parents would have voted a resounding NO!
A $31 million computer lab focusing on SAP and Oracle database skills and teaching 400-500 students per year would contibute much more than a grand stand for Larry Vanderhoef and 45-50 football players.
bingo.
bingo.
bingo.
bingo.
Mike-
Is juicing up a 21st century skill?
DPD-
The University found the money for the stadium, the same way they are threatening to find money for th Sodexho raise…student fees. But, as UCD is already the most expensive UC in regards to campus based fees, and given that the Regents are still made at Larry for raising fees fro D-1, I don’t think Larry has the ability to raise fees to pay for a wage increase. So that threat is moot.
Mike-
Is juicing up a 21st century skill?
DPD-
The University found the money for the stadium, the same way they are threatening to find money for th Sodexho raise…student fees. But, as UCD is already the most expensive UC in regards to campus based fees, and given that the Regents are still made at Larry for raising fees fro D-1, I don’t think Larry has the ability to raise fees to pay for a wage increase. So that threat is moot.
Mike-
Is juicing up a 21st century skill?
DPD-
The University found the money for the stadium, the same way they are threatening to find money for th Sodexho raise…student fees. But, as UCD is already the most expensive UC in regards to campus based fees, and given that the Regents are still made at Larry for raising fees fro D-1, I don’t think Larry has the ability to raise fees to pay for a wage increase. So that threat is moot.
Mike-
Is juicing up a 21st century skill?
DPD-
The University found the money for the stadium, the same way they are threatening to find money for th Sodexho raise…student fees. But, as UCD is already the most expensive UC in regards to campus based fees, and given that the Regents are still made at Larry for raising fees fro D-1, I don’t think Larry has the ability to raise fees to pay for a wage increase. So that threat is moot.
Anonymous 11:29 AM said: I know the students were allowed to vote on the $31 million football stadium, but the parents were not given a choice. I assume the parents would have voted a resounding NO!
Why would you assume that the parents would have voted a resounding NO? Not just NO, a resounding NO! A lab for SAP or Oracle database skills would be a worthwhile thing for 400-500 students a year, but to say the stadium is for Larry and 45-50 football players is off the mark. It’s for the 5000 plus students and supporters that attend each football game and a lesser number that will attend other events throughout the year. A balanced blend of academics and sports is good for the university and the community. Many outstanding universities have great sport venues for the student-athletes. Let’s not single out the stadium as the culprit for deficiencies in other areas.
G&S said: Is juicing up a 21st century skill?
The overwhelming majority of the atlethes that I know don’t fit your biased opinion.
Anonymous 11:29 AM said: I know the students were allowed to vote on the $31 million football stadium, but the parents were not given a choice. I assume the parents would have voted a resounding NO!
Why would you assume that the parents would have voted a resounding NO? Not just NO, a resounding NO! A lab for SAP or Oracle database skills would be a worthwhile thing for 400-500 students a year, but to say the stadium is for Larry and 45-50 football players is off the mark. It’s for the 5000 plus students and supporters that attend each football game and a lesser number that will attend other events throughout the year. A balanced blend of academics and sports is good for the university and the community. Many outstanding universities have great sport venues for the student-athletes. Let’s not single out the stadium as the culprit for deficiencies in other areas.
G&S said: Is juicing up a 21st century skill?
The overwhelming majority of the atlethes that I know don’t fit your biased opinion.
Anonymous 11:29 AM said: I know the students were allowed to vote on the $31 million football stadium, but the parents were not given a choice. I assume the parents would have voted a resounding NO!
Why would you assume that the parents would have voted a resounding NO? Not just NO, a resounding NO! A lab for SAP or Oracle database skills would be a worthwhile thing for 400-500 students a year, but to say the stadium is for Larry and 45-50 football players is off the mark. It’s for the 5000 plus students and supporters that attend each football game and a lesser number that will attend other events throughout the year. A balanced blend of academics and sports is good for the university and the community. Many outstanding universities have great sport venues for the student-athletes. Let’s not single out the stadium as the culprit for deficiencies in other areas.
G&S said: Is juicing up a 21st century skill?
The overwhelming majority of the atlethes that I know don’t fit your biased opinion.
Anonymous 11:29 AM said: I know the students were allowed to vote on the $31 million football stadium, but the parents were not given a choice. I assume the parents would have voted a resounding NO!
Why would you assume that the parents would have voted a resounding NO? Not just NO, a resounding NO! A lab for SAP or Oracle database skills would be a worthwhile thing for 400-500 students a year, but to say the stadium is for Larry and 45-50 football players is off the mark. It’s for the 5000 plus students and supporters that attend each football game and a lesser number that will attend other events throughout the year. A balanced blend of academics and sports is good for the university and the community. Many outstanding universities have great sport venues for the student-athletes. Let’s not single out the stadium as the culprit for deficiencies in other areas.
G&S said: Is juicing up a 21st century skill?
The overwhelming majority of the atlethes that I know don’t fit your biased opinion.
“It’s for the 5000 plus students and supporters that attend each football game…”
According to the Enterprise, 9690 people attended yesterday’s game.
I am not a football fan, but I see the value of college sports, and I believe the UCD program is a model for the rest of collegiate athletics. Academics has always been first priority for student athletes here. The comment about ‘juicing up’ is just malicious, unless you have some evidence of drug use by UCD athletes.
“It’s for the 5000 plus students and supporters that attend each football game…”
According to the Enterprise, 9690 people attended yesterday’s game.
I am not a football fan, but I see the value of college sports, and I believe the UCD program is a model for the rest of collegiate athletics. Academics has always been first priority for student athletes here. The comment about ‘juicing up’ is just malicious, unless you have some evidence of drug use by UCD athletes.
“It’s for the 5000 plus students and supporters that attend each football game…”
According to the Enterprise, 9690 people attended yesterday’s game.
I am not a football fan, but I see the value of college sports, and I believe the UCD program is a model for the rest of collegiate athletics. Academics has always been first priority for student athletes here. The comment about ‘juicing up’ is just malicious, unless you have some evidence of drug use by UCD athletes.
“It’s for the 5000 plus students and supporters that attend each football game…”
According to the Enterprise, 9690 people attended yesterday’s game.
I am not a football fan, but I see the value of college sports, and I believe the UCD program is a model for the rest of collegiate athletics. Academics has always been first priority for student athletes here. The comment about ‘juicing up’ is just malicious, unless you have some evidence of drug use by UCD athletes.
“Students were given a choice, and they voted to increase their fees to pay for the stadium (as well as the ARC and other facilities).”
This is misleading, if not completely untrue. The students who actually voted for the increased fees for D-1 athletics and for improved facilities about 5 years ago were exempt from paying the fees they voted for. The fees were passed on to incoming classes which had no say in the matter.
Although I don’t have give a damn about the food-service workers — hell, if it’s a bad job, go work somewhere else — I basically agree with David Greenwald’s column. That is, I too love college football. I’m a fan. But I agree that we spend way too much money on this extracurricular activity. I realize that a few college football and men’s basketball programs make money for their schools. But most don’t. Most sports programs (in my opinion) should not have scholarships. I would far rather an average chemistry student got a full ride scholarship than a top tier rower or a very fast hurdler.
The main benefit I see in intercollegiate athletics is that (in the popular sports) they can bring together the campus community, raising the spirits of everyone around a college. But in almost every other sport, giving out scholarships to me seems like a terrible misplacement of priorities. For most kids, intramural sports would be just fine. And for others (as rugby was when I played Prop for UCSB) intercollegiate club sports should be the model.
… Backtracking to Sodexho, I would greatly prefer the costs for food service be kept down as low as possible, so that a college education could be more affordable to more students. I feel the same way about keeping the costs down when it comes to paying deans, provosts and chancellors.
“Students were given a choice, and they voted to increase their fees to pay for the stadium (as well as the ARC and other facilities).”
This is misleading, if not completely untrue. The students who actually voted for the increased fees for D-1 athletics and for improved facilities about 5 years ago were exempt from paying the fees they voted for. The fees were passed on to incoming classes which had no say in the matter.
Although I don’t have give a damn about the food-service workers — hell, if it’s a bad job, go work somewhere else — I basically agree with David Greenwald’s column. That is, I too love college football. I’m a fan. But I agree that we spend way too much money on this extracurricular activity. I realize that a few college football and men’s basketball programs make money for their schools. But most don’t. Most sports programs (in my opinion) should not have scholarships. I would far rather an average chemistry student got a full ride scholarship than a top tier rower or a very fast hurdler.
The main benefit I see in intercollegiate athletics is that (in the popular sports) they can bring together the campus community, raising the spirits of everyone around a college. But in almost every other sport, giving out scholarships to me seems like a terrible misplacement of priorities. For most kids, intramural sports would be just fine. And for others (as rugby was when I played Prop for UCSB) intercollegiate club sports should be the model.
… Backtracking to Sodexho, I would greatly prefer the costs for food service be kept down as low as possible, so that a college education could be more affordable to more students. I feel the same way about keeping the costs down when it comes to paying deans, provosts and chancellors.
“Students were given a choice, and they voted to increase their fees to pay for the stadium (as well as the ARC and other facilities).”
This is misleading, if not completely untrue. The students who actually voted for the increased fees for D-1 athletics and for improved facilities about 5 years ago were exempt from paying the fees they voted for. The fees were passed on to incoming classes which had no say in the matter.
Although I don’t have give a damn about the food-service workers — hell, if it’s a bad job, go work somewhere else — I basically agree with David Greenwald’s column. That is, I too love college football. I’m a fan. But I agree that we spend way too much money on this extracurricular activity. I realize that a few college football and men’s basketball programs make money for their schools. But most don’t. Most sports programs (in my opinion) should not have scholarships. I would far rather an average chemistry student got a full ride scholarship than a top tier rower or a very fast hurdler.
The main benefit I see in intercollegiate athletics is that (in the popular sports) they can bring together the campus community, raising the spirits of everyone around a college. But in almost every other sport, giving out scholarships to me seems like a terrible misplacement of priorities. For most kids, intramural sports would be just fine. And for others (as rugby was when I played Prop for UCSB) intercollegiate club sports should be the model.
… Backtracking to Sodexho, I would greatly prefer the costs for food service be kept down as low as possible, so that a college education could be more affordable to more students. I feel the same way about keeping the costs down when it comes to paying deans, provosts and chancellors.
“Students were given a choice, and they voted to increase their fees to pay for the stadium (as well as the ARC and other facilities).”
This is misleading, if not completely untrue. The students who actually voted for the increased fees for D-1 athletics and for improved facilities about 5 years ago were exempt from paying the fees they voted for. The fees were passed on to incoming classes which had no say in the matter.
Although I don’t have give a damn about the food-service workers — hell, if it’s a bad job, go work somewhere else — I basically agree with David Greenwald’s column. That is, I too love college football. I’m a fan. But I agree that we spend way too much money on this extracurricular activity. I realize that a few college football and men’s basketball programs make money for their schools. But most don’t. Most sports programs (in my opinion) should not have scholarships. I would far rather an average chemistry student got a full ride scholarship than a top tier rower or a very fast hurdler.
The main benefit I see in intercollegiate athletics is that (in the popular sports) they can bring together the campus community, raising the spirits of everyone around a college. But in almost every other sport, giving out scholarships to me seems like a terrible misplacement of priorities. For most kids, intramural sports would be just fine. And for others (as rugby was when I played Prop for UCSB) intercollegiate club sports should be the model.
… Backtracking to Sodexho, I would greatly prefer the costs for food service be kept down as low as possible, so that a college education could be more affordable to more students. I feel the same way about keeping the costs down when it comes to paying deans, provosts and chancellors.
Mike,
You obviously need to re-read the Vanguard entry. DPD was not, “Linking a football stadium which was largely funded by alumni support and student fees with the Sodexho wage hike is just wrong.”
I’m sorry, you are wrong.
DPD said that he did not agree with the fact that VanderHUFF and UCD administrators asked the students to fund the $31 million dollar stadium, while making a big stink over a measly $1 million for the Sodexho workers to have a decent paying job and benefits.
I’m an alum and I find this appalling!
If you choose to be selfish and think only of yourself and not the well being of others in our community than so be it. However, I thank DPD and others who have continued to bring this important issue to our attention.
Mike,
You obviously need to re-read the Vanguard entry. DPD was not, “Linking a football stadium which was largely funded by alumni support and student fees with the Sodexho wage hike is just wrong.”
I’m sorry, you are wrong.
DPD said that he did not agree with the fact that VanderHUFF and UCD administrators asked the students to fund the $31 million dollar stadium, while making a big stink over a measly $1 million for the Sodexho workers to have a decent paying job and benefits.
I’m an alum and I find this appalling!
If you choose to be selfish and think only of yourself and not the well being of others in our community than so be it. However, I thank DPD and others who have continued to bring this important issue to our attention.
Mike,
You obviously need to re-read the Vanguard entry. DPD was not, “Linking a football stadium which was largely funded by alumni support and student fees with the Sodexho wage hike is just wrong.”
I’m sorry, you are wrong.
DPD said that he did not agree with the fact that VanderHUFF and UCD administrators asked the students to fund the $31 million dollar stadium, while making a big stink over a measly $1 million for the Sodexho workers to have a decent paying job and benefits.
I’m an alum and I find this appalling!
If you choose to be selfish and think only of yourself and not the well being of others in our community than so be it. However, I thank DPD and others who have continued to bring this important issue to our attention.
Mike,
You obviously need to re-read the Vanguard entry. DPD was not, “Linking a football stadium which was largely funded by alumni support and student fees with the Sodexho wage hike is just wrong.”
I’m sorry, you are wrong.
DPD said that he did not agree with the fact that VanderHUFF and UCD administrators asked the students to fund the $31 million dollar stadium, while making a big stink over a measly $1 million for the Sodexho workers to have a decent paying job and benefits.
I’m an alum and I find this appalling!
If you choose to be selfish and think only of yourself and not the well being of others in our community than so be it. However, I thank DPD and others who have continued to bring this important issue to our attention.
Why is it not surprising that some would be so self-centered and say,
“Although I don’t have give a damn about the food-service workers…”
Consider the source and it will not surprise you at all.
Why is it not surprising that some would be so self-centered and say,
“Although I don’t have give a damn about the food-service workers…”
Consider the source and it will not surprise you at all.
Why is it not surprising that some would be so self-centered and say,
“Although I don’t have give a damn about the food-service workers…”
Consider the source and it will not surprise you at all.
Why is it not surprising that some would be so self-centered and say,
“Although I don’t have give a damn about the food-service workers…”
Consider the source and it will not surprise you at all.
Anonymous 7:43 wrote: “Sodexho has programs to utilize various segments of the workforce that the University would never hire.”
That is an interesting comment. So in 2010, when UCD finally drops the Sodexho contract and provides food service in-house, do the existing employees simply apply and take their chances?
Anonymous 7:43 wrote: “Sodexho has programs to utilize various segments of the workforce that the University would never hire.”
That is an interesting comment. So in 2010, when UCD finally drops the Sodexho contract and provides food service in-house, do the existing employees simply apply and take their chances?
Anonymous 7:43 wrote: “Sodexho has programs to utilize various segments of the workforce that the University would never hire.”
That is an interesting comment. So in 2010, when UCD finally drops the Sodexho contract and provides food service in-house, do the existing employees simply apply and take their chances?
Anonymous 7:43 wrote: “Sodexho has programs to utilize various segments of the workforce that the University would never hire.”
That is an interesting comment. So in 2010, when UCD finally drops the Sodexho contract and provides food service in-house, do the existing employees simply apply and take their chances?
Dear disappointed-
I too am an alum and I think the money on the stadium was well spent. I think interfering in the wage issues between Sodexho and their workers is just silly. What makes it amusing is that now that Sodexho is burdened with higher wages lets see how they do on the next round of bids to keep their franchise with the University…
Dear disappointed-
I too am an alum and I think the money on the stadium was well spent. I think interfering in the wage issues between Sodexho and their workers is just silly. What makes it amusing is that now that Sodexho is burdened with higher wages lets see how they do on the next round of bids to keep their franchise with the University…
Dear disappointed-
I too am an alum and I think the money on the stadium was well spent. I think interfering in the wage issues between Sodexho and their workers is just silly. What makes it amusing is that now that Sodexho is burdened with higher wages lets see how they do on the next round of bids to keep their franchise with the University…
Dear disappointed-
I too am an alum and I think the money on the stadium was well spent. I think interfering in the wage issues between Sodexho and their workers is just silly. What makes it amusing is that now that Sodexho is burdened with higher wages lets see how they do on the next round of bids to keep their franchise with the University…
i agree with rifkin on everything but the food service employees. sports are great and all, but they’re far better as something students actually do rather than watch. as fun as aggie games are to watch, with the band and all, intramural sports are probably a better use of funds.
ultimately, though, the university’d be better off if the wages of admins and food service workers were a whole lot closer in amount. not least of which because, once you pay some suit a zillion dollars, they start to believe that the work that they do is somehow that magnitude more important and beneficial than some schmuck serving food.
i agree with rifkin on everything but the food service employees. sports are great and all, but they’re far better as something students actually do rather than watch. as fun as aggie games are to watch, with the band and all, intramural sports are probably a better use of funds.
ultimately, though, the university’d be better off if the wages of admins and food service workers were a whole lot closer in amount. not least of which because, once you pay some suit a zillion dollars, they start to believe that the work that they do is somehow that magnitude more important and beneficial than some schmuck serving food.
i agree with rifkin on everything but the food service employees. sports are great and all, but they’re far better as something students actually do rather than watch. as fun as aggie games are to watch, with the band and all, intramural sports are probably a better use of funds.
ultimately, though, the university’d be better off if the wages of admins and food service workers were a whole lot closer in amount. not least of which because, once you pay some suit a zillion dollars, they start to believe that the work that they do is somehow that magnitude more important and beneficial than some schmuck serving food.
i agree with rifkin on everything but the food service employees. sports are great and all, but they’re far better as something students actually do rather than watch. as fun as aggie games are to watch, with the band and all, intramural sports are probably a better use of funds.
ultimately, though, the university’d be better off if the wages of admins and food service workers were a whole lot closer in amount. not least of which because, once you pay some suit a zillion dollars, they start to believe that the work that they do is somehow that magnitude more important and beneficial than some schmuck serving food.
Poor choice of a Yiddish phrase, especially in this context! I think you meant shmo….
Poor choice of a Yiddish phrase, especially in this context! I think you meant shmo….
Poor choice of a Yiddish phrase, especially in this context! I think you meant shmo….
Poor choice of a Yiddish phrase, especially in this context! I think you meant shmo….
well, that’s the attitude. from my perspective, they’re more shlimazels than schmucks.
well, that’s the attitude. from my perspective, they’re more shlimazels than schmucks.
well, that’s the attitude. from my perspective, they’re more shlimazels than schmucks.
well, that’s the attitude. from my perspective, they’re more shlimazels than schmucks.
The vast majority of it was through student fees — the Campus Expansion Initiative and the Move to D1 which funded the Stadium, a bunch of other stuff, and the ARC– And they were seriously struggling on donors(which is why there aren’t any lights yet and no night games).
So, the Stadium was built on the backs of Students. Likewise, Sodexho and the UCD Administration are planning on passing on the costs to– Students.
Oh, and did you know that Stanford payed UC Davis several hundred thousand dollars to get their asses kicked last year?
Finally, UCD Funds all of its sports teams at the same percentage, so it can’t just fully fund football and cut rugby out. If it continues to increase funding for the scholarships, then it will receive more from other institutions. However, there won’t be a net positive for a couple of years at least, and even then the fee on students isn’t going to decrease, but instead stay constant (It’s maximum increase is the CPI).
The vast majority of it was through student fees — the Campus Expansion Initiative and the Move to D1 which funded the Stadium, a bunch of other stuff, and the ARC– And they were seriously struggling on donors(which is why there aren’t any lights yet and no night games).
So, the Stadium was built on the backs of Students. Likewise, Sodexho and the UCD Administration are planning on passing on the costs to– Students.
Oh, and did you know that Stanford payed UC Davis several hundred thousand dollars to get their asses kicked last year?
Finally, UCD Funds all of its sports teams at the same percentage, so it can’t just fully fund football and cut rugby out. If it continues to increase funding for the scholarships, then it will receive more from other institutions. However, there won’t be a net positive for a couple of years at least, and even then the fee on students isn’t going to decrease, but instead stay constant (It’s maximum increase is the CPI).
The vast majority of it was through student fees — the Campus Expansion Initiative and the Move to D1 which funded the Stadium, a bunch of other stuff, and the ARC– And they were seriously struggling on donors(which is why there aren’t any lights yet and no night games).
So, the Stadium was built on the backs of Students. Likewise, Sodexho and the UCD Administration are planning on passing on the costs to– Students.
Oh, and did you know that Stanford payed UC Davis several hundred thousand dollars to get their asses kicked last year?
Finally, UCD Funds all of its sports teams at the same percentage, so it can’t just fully fund football and cut rugby out. If it continues to increase funding for the scholarships, then it will receive more from other institutions. However, there won’t be a net positive for a couple of years at least, and even then the fee on students isn’t going to decrease, but instead stay constant (It’s maximum increase is the CPI).
The vast majority of it was through student fees — the Campus Expansion Initiative and the Move to D1 which funded the Stadium, a bunch of other stuff, and the ARC– And they were seriously struggling on donors(which is why there aren’t any lights yet and no night games).
So, the Stadium was built on the backs of Students. Likewise, Sodexho and the UCD Administration are planning on passing on the costs to– Students.
Oh, and did you know that Stanford payed UC Davis several hundred thousand dollars to get their asses kicked last year?
Finally, UCD Funds all of its sports teams at the same percentage, so it can’t just fully fund football and cut rugby out. If it continues to increase funding for the scholarships, then it will receive more from other institutions. However, there won’t be a net positive for a couple of years at least, and even then the fee on students isn’t going to decrease, but instead stay constant (It’s maximum increase is the CPI).
Anonymous 2:38 a.m. your facts are off. FACE, CEI, and D1 were all separate votes. Several hundred thousand dollars is a complete exageration, and though it was a highlight of my Aggie Pride a 20-17 close game against the Cardinal, with some 3 or 4 missed field goals/extra points was not an ass-kicking. Finally, since Rugby is a club sport it does not get the same revenue as Football, it’s self-funded. And there’s a formula for figuring out scholarship and programmatic budgets, so no – the expenses of football and women’s soccer, for example, are not equal.
But your main point – students funded the stadium is correct. They voted to pay for two-thirds of it. The fee, small at first ($5.00) went into effect the next quarter after the vote, so yes, the students who did vote on it paid for it, albeit in small amounts. But they also didn’t get to use the facilities – namely the ARC, which was, I am pretty sure, the most expensive part of the original FACE vote. Students bore the full cost of that facility.
I think the fairest criticism of the stadium is that we – the alumni, donor, development parts of the University – did not live up to our goals to partner with the students on raising the money for the facility, and frankly the university should hold those responsible for the shortfall accountable. We could have done much better.
Anonymous 2:38 a.m. your facts are off. FACE, CEI, and D1 were all separate votes. Several hundred thousand dollars is a complete exageration, and though it was a highlight of my Aggie Pride a 20-17 close game against the Cardinal, with some 3 or 4 missed field goals/extra points was not an ass-kicking. Finally, since Rugby is a club sport it does not get the same revenue as Football, it’s self-funded. And there’s a formula for figuring out scholarship and programmatic budgets, so no – the expenses of football and women’s soccer, for example, are not equal.
But your main point – students funded the stadium is correct. They voted to pay for two-thirds of it. The fee, small at first ($5.00) went into effect the next quarter after the vote, so yes, the students who did vote on it paid for it, albeit in small amounts. But they also didn’t get to use the facilities – namely the ARC, which was, I am pretty sure, the most expensive part of the original FACE vote. Students bore the full cost of that facility.
I think the fairest criticism of the stadium is that we – the alumni, donor, development parts of the University – did not live up to our goals to partner with the students on raising the money for the facility, and frankly the university should hold those responsible for the shortfall accountable. We could have done much better.
Anonymous 2:38 a.m. your facts are off. FACE, CEI, and D1 were all separate votes. Several hundred thousand dollars is a complete exageration, and though it was a highlight of my Aggie Pride a 20-17 close game against the Cardinal, with some 3 or 4 missed field goals/extra points was not an ass-kicking. Finally, since Rugby is a club sport it does not get the same revenue as Football, it’s self-funded. And there’s a formula for figuring out scholarship and programmatic budgets, so no – the expenses of football and women’s soccer, for example, are not equal.
But your main point – students funded the stadium is correct. They voted to pay for two-thirds of it. The fee, small at first ($5.00) went into effect the next quarter after the vote, so yes, the students who did vote on it paid for it, albeit in small amounts. But they also didn’t get to use the facilities – namely the ARC, which was, I am pretty sure, the most expensive part of the original FACE vote. Students bore the full cost of that facility.
I think the fairest criticism of the stadium is that we – the alumni, donor, development parts of the University – did not live up to our goals to partner with the students on raising the money for the facility, and frankly the university should hold those responsible for the shortfall accountable. We could have done much better.
Anonymous 2:38 a.m. your facts are off. FACE, CEI, and D1 were all separate votes. Several hundred thousand dollars is a complete exageration, and though it was a highlight of my Aggie Pride a 20-17 close game against the Cardinal, with some 3 or 4 missed field goals/extra points was not an ass-kicking. Finally, since Rugby is a club sport it does not get the same revenue as Football, it’s self-funded. And there’s a formula for figuring out scholarship and programmatic budgets, so no – the expenses of football and women’s soccer, for example, are not equal.
But your main point – students funded the stadium is correct. They voted to pay for two-thirds of it. The fee, small at first ($5.00) went into effect the next quarter after the vote, so yes, the students who did vote on it paid for it, albeit in small amounts. But they also didn’t get to use the facilities – namely the ARC, which was, I am pretty sure, the most expensive part of the original FACE vote. Students bore the full cost of that facility.
I think the fairest criticism of the stadium is that we – the alumni, donor, development parts of the University – did not live up to our goals to partner with the students on raising the money for the facility, and frankly the university should hold those responsible for the shortfall accountable. We could have done much better.
My mistake, its the summertime, I haven’t had the chance to look at the documents since spring, and I wasn’t instrumental in passing the increases.
My mistake, its the summertime, I haven’t had the chance to look at the documents since spring, and I wasn’t instrumental in passing the increases.
My mistake, its the summertime, I haven’t had the chance to look at the documents since spring, and I wasn’t instrumental in passing the increases.
My mistake, its the summertime, I haven’t had the chance to look at the documents since spring, and I wasn’t instrumental in passing the increases.