|
Post by dairishhoya on May 4, 2004 8:37:23 GMT -5
One of the many priorities .... www.thehoya.com/news/050404/news1.cfm----- While the university begins to move forward with concrete plans for an $82 million McDonough School of Business building this summer, a planned science center has remained only in preliminary development stages since its initial proposal 15 years ago. The center is hindered by a lack of fundraising despite a strong science department and university support. The funding for the science center has lagged at $12 million of the $30 million needed in order to begin the construction process. "The funding of [the science center] is turning out to be a bit more difficult than expected," University President John J. DeGioia said at a January interview with campus media. "These are the most expensive buildings you can make, and fundraising $100 million-plus dollars is going to be very, very challenging." ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2004 9:01:24 GMT -5
As much as it pains me to say it, I think a science center should be built ahead of a renovated/new McD. From that article it sounds like the biz school building is going to start going up and from what I gather the performing arts center is apparently nearing completion. That leaves us with two partially funded projects: the Multi-Sport Facility and the new science complex. As we've come to know, the first half of the MSF is going ahead with construction, leaving only the "offices" and other parts of the superstructure to be built. I'm not familiar with the protocols of university construction and funding, but wouldn't it seem like a good idea to pursue one project at a time? In other words, channel all incoming funds into finishing the science center funding and getting it started, then moving onto the MSF and getting that truly completed (matching what the February 2002 prospectus said it would be), then moving onto a new McD/convocation center? If anyone has any inside info on how these things work, I'm sure we'd all love to hear about it.
GO HOYAS!!!
|
|
watsonry
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 314
|
Post by watsonry on May 4, 2004 9:05:01 GMT -5
What about corporate funding?
There are lots of rich pharm, chemical and tech companies out there.
The Intel Science Center, The Pfizer Science Center?
|
|
SaxaCD
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,401
|
Post by SaxaCD on May 4, 2004 9:10:13 GMT -5
I'd contribute to convocation center way before giving one penny for a science building. That's probably why like-minded folks should be brought on board for each of the projects mentioned, and also why the fundraising for a new or improved McD would have to be done outside the official auspices of GU, and then given to GU as 100% completed funding.
|
|
|
Post by dairishhoya on May 4, 2004 9:22:07 GMT -5
I'd contribute to convocation center way before giving one penny for a science building. That's probably why like-minded folks should be brought on board for each of the projects mentioned, and also why the fundraising for a new or improved McD would have to be done outside the official auspices of GU, and then given to GU as 100% completed funding. But at the same time you probably expect GU to compete in rankings with peer institutions like Harvard, Stanford, Duke, UPenn, Princeton, etc. Although, I understand the desire to have an on-campus arena (I just think people are kidding themselves about the true nature of the hurdles faced) ... I just wonder what's more important for the institution and the value of our degrees? An arena would be nice, but isn't a Science Bldg. essential for us to be an elite institution?
|
|
watsonry
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 314
|
Post by watsonry on May 4, 2004 9:25:11 GMT -5
I agree. I would love a convocation center ASAP, however, grad rankings aren't determined by the success of our hoops team. G-Town desperately needs a science center if we want to continue to compete with our peers.
Maybe when Trump's son graduates we will get a large "gift"
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on May 4, 2004 10:03:44 GMT -5
But at the same time you probably expect GU to compete in rankings with peer institutions like Harvard, Stanford, Duke, UPenn, Princeton, etc. Although, I understand the desire to have an on-campus arena (I just think people are kidding themselves about the true nature of the hurdles faced) ... I just wonder what's more important for the institution and the value of our degrees? An arena would be nice, but isn't a Science Bldg. essential for us to be an elite institution? I don't really care. People vaguely know about Georgetown and are impressed. I don't a science center is going to help my business degree. But I watch almost every Hoya game, so I'll take that. That said, it's nice they are putting up a science center, but my money will go to an arena.
|
|
SaxaCD
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,401
|
Post by SaxaCD on May 4, 2004 10:11:31 GMT -5
Exactly -- I don't care about subjective "rankings" by factoid newsmagazines anywhere near as much as I care about GU hoops. I'm not saying the science center might not be important, I'm just saying that I personally wouldn't contribute to it because I couldn't give a flying flip about it. Hence my point that money raised for a convocation center would best be done outside the competing interests of others within and outside the University.
|
|
nodak89
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Roy Roy Royyyyy!!!
Posts: 1,881
|
Post by nodak89 on May 4, 2004 10:41:52 GMT -5
I don't think the idea behind the science center is to "buy" some academic RPI points and boost our ranking. Certainly there is a real need.
I was just thinking that SBA/SFS/etc grads should care more about the College and science, and I was ready to get all indignant--but then I realized as a pre-med Bio grad I only gave half a flip about (and no $ to) the new Business School. To be honest, I've not given any extra dough for the science building, either. But I would chip in for an on-campus arena. Basketball is the great unifier.
Fundraising is not a zero-sum game. If we get the students and alumni excited about hoops again, I would expect that would lead to more overall giving to academic needs. I realize that this sounds backwards, but the Hoyas basketball team drives GU. How much $$$ and prestige is lost from less GU stuff being bought nationwide?
When I first started coming back home to No Dak from DC during summers and after graduation in '89, it was striking to see how much GU stuff there was. I used to ask people with GU stuff on if they went to GU or knew someone there, but it was never the case.
Now, I bet the results are very different now.
|
|
SoCalHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
No es bueno
Posts: 1,313
|
Post by SoCalHoya on May 4, 2004 11:38:55 GMT -5
I want a new convocation center/hoops arena, bad. I think it'd be an excellent unifier for the campus community.
That being said, the folks in GU science departments are dealing with sub-community college facilities. As many have pointed out, this is no zero-sum game, we can raise money for both, but I must defer to the needs of the science department. A lot of science/math and "undecided" students choose to go elsewhere because studying science is not taken very seriously on the Hilltop. I'd like that to change. We don't have to have CalTech-like facilities, just something that isn't laughable.
I can't believe I just said that, considering I'm SFS-grad.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on May 4, 2004 11:48:10 GMT -5
I just want a winning basketball program. There are a lot of teams with nice new arenas, and stinking basketball programs.
|
|
KHoyaNYC
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,900
|
Post by KHoyaNYC on May 4, 2004 11:52:14 GMT -5
I guess i'll just double my contribution.
|
|
hoya01
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 169
|
Post by hoya01 on May 4, 2004 11:59:46 GMT -5
Wasn't there some correlation between when Northwestern went to the Rose Bowl in 1995 and their rise in rankings in the subsequent years?
While I agree with the importance of having a new science building, it will not increase alumni support the same way a winning basketball program will. And alumni giving is one area in which Georgetown gets hammered each year in the rankings.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,485
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on May 4, 2004 13:12:48 GMT -5
Since I received a BS degree in chemistry, I obviously want a new science building. Every time I visited Georgetown (unfortunately very few times in the past 25 years), I sought out my old chem prof (about to retire now) and discuss the "new" science building. As people have mentioned, it has been on the books for years. The usual excuses for its being delayed have been the concerns with the Georgetown home owners association. They always wanted GU to build more dorms, so that the damn students didn't have to live in their sacred neighborhoods. So my former prof saw the dream of a new building fading. Actually, he was a new prof my first year at GU, which happened to be the first year Reiss was open. Even in those days the chemistry students (and it probably true even to this day) have to do their labs in WG, which was outdated in the early 60's. End of rant.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on May 4, 2004 16:44:05 GMT -5
There is nothing "subjective" about the fact that our science facilitites are an abomination when compared to the schools we compete for students with. You can put it in quotes and dis the US News rankings all you like, but the fact is those facilities are a university embarrasment. I am in the "science center is a more important priority right now"camp. We need new sciences facilities NOW, we woud like better basketball facilities in the medium to long term future- that is how I see it anyway.
|
|
|
Post by dairishhoya on May 4, 2004 19:06:53 GMT -5
Just can't resist pointing out the irony: maybe the AD and Esh should've taken notes from the science faculty ... facilities don't necessarily equate to a quality product. With labs that should be condemned we still produce students that excel at science: Goldwater scholars, USA Today First Academic Team All American, Jack Kent Cooke Foundation scholars, etc. Hopefully, JTIII will change that mentality -- be prepared to *compete and win* anywhere, anytime, anyplace. But, then again, maybe we should just use MCI for lab space instead ....
|
|
MEGAFAN
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 649
|
Post by MEGAFAN on May 4, 2004 20:24:28 GMT -5
I guess those of you out there who state that you don't care about the science center are only claiming to be basketball fans, but for those of you who are also GEORGETOWN fans, you must realize that you sound very ignorant if you don' think that the science center is a top, if not the top, priority for Georgetown's future.
I agree that fundraising is not a zero-sum game, and while I myself have donated more to the basketball program than any other area, I can not blame a top academic institution for placing a higher priority on academics.
Furthermore, now that we are in the 21st century, science is at the forefront of almost any discipline. Whether it's law, foreign policy, language, history, psychology, etc., you cannot be considered a culturally literate person going forward without the ability to understand and interface with issues of science and technology.
I do agree that Georgetown can be very short-sighted, and that building a Convocation Center would help us make money in the long run. I do also believe that basketball is the #1 venue through which Georgetown can create a sense of community for students and alumni alike. It also serves as the best marketing vehicle for the university. In my opinion, Georgetown cannot afford NOT to invest in these facilities, just like I believe that they cannot afford not to have their very own Alumni Club in NYC. They say they can't afford it, I say that can't afford not to have it.
If you know me, MEGAFAN, you know that I love Hoya hoops more than most things in the world, and it is a huge reason why I remain in touch with the school, etc., but I also love Georgetown as a whole, and believe that as a result of this, I understand that upgrading their science center is of the upmost importance.
Furthermore, it's not like we have an adequate or average science center, it is as subpar as McDonough, but at least we've got MCI. Of course, I think that both projects must be undertaken, ideally in parallel, but I just don't grasp how some alumni can consider themsleves proud Georgetown graduates but yet have such indifference or apathy towards the new science center project. Maybe this is why it has taken so long...
You may think that those who want to study science should go to MIT or Carnegie Mellon, but regardless of your academic background, science's proliferation into every corner of our lives is inevitable, and we need to accept that. The sooner, the better.
Clearly, the problems surrounding fundraising for Georgetown have not been isolated to certain areas, but symptomatic of a fundamental problem, which I believe they are slowly attempting to rectify. The billion dollar campaign will go a long way towards helping, but we must not get complacent, as this should only be the first step.
Sorry to go on and on...
GO HOYAS!!!
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,485
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on May 4, 2004 20:44:59 GMT -5
Well said, Megafan!!!
|
|
|
Post by dairishhoya on May 4, 2004 21:15:07 GMT -5
Great post MEGAFAN. I apologize in advance for the long post. In case some of you haven't read President DeGioia's address at faculty convocation, he gives a great overview of our current financial challenges. data.georgetown.edu/president/speeches/jjd03232004.htmlSome excerpts: -------------------- This is Georgetown's 215th year, and financial challenges have been a reality for most of those years. But a sea change occurred for us beginning in the 1970s. Despite a tiny endowment, as a University community, we decided to take Georgetown to a new level of academic excellence. This collective decision took the form of many defining actions: we adopted a full-need financial aid policy for our undergraduates, which enabled us to support our effort to recruit a truly national student body. We greatly increased the size of the faculty and raised the expectations for scholarship as a condition for tenure. We transformed the physical campuses, adding Henle, Villages A and C, Alumni Square, as well as ICC, Yates and Leavey. Through a brilliant series of five year planning processes, we built the Law Center academically and carved our own unique niche among the nation's leading law schools. ... Let me be clear, that is exactly right. Our endowment is less than one-fifth of other universities in the top 25. This is our historical legacy as an institution that broke into a new competitive arena against all odds—with staggering aspirations but not staggering wealth. Our investment in excellence worked. The investment that defined our trajectory in the 70s and 80s brought us to a new playing field. Other institutions are richer than Georgetown. But they are not more interesting. They are not better. They do not have some of our unique assets. They do not have our people. They do not have our promise. We don't have the cushion provided by a big endowment. We don't have the ability to borrow large new sums of money. We don’t have the ability to increase undergraduate enrollment. We need to be world-class at managing our precious resources. This will enable us to be sure that we maintain our commitment to our academic priorities and that we can sustain our trajectory of excellence. ... I am often asked how the University could be facing financial constraints when we just finished raising more than $1 billion. It is important to acknowledge a few facts of campaign math. Much of the campaign total reflects future commitments that will be made over the course of the next five years. Of the $1 billion that we raised, we have received about 2/3 in cash at this point. The rest will be collected over the next five years. Of the $664 million we have received so far, more than $300 million was spent over the past 8 years by all of us for current uses in each of our schools on all of our campuses, about $125 million was used to finance capital construction, and about $200 million found its way into the endowment. This campaign made a big difference for Georgetown, endowing 62 new faculty chairs and professorships, creating 219 new scholarships, enabling us to build critical new buildings, all resources we must have if Georgetown is to compete with other elite institutions for the best students and the best faculty.
|
|
PDRHoya99
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 766
|
Post by PDRHoya99 on May 5, 2004 0:36:27 GMT -5
I guess those of you out there who state that you don't care about the science center are only claiming to be basketball fans, but for those of you who are also GEORGETOWN fans, you must realize that you sound very ignorant if you don' think that the science center is a top, if not the top, priority for Georgetown's future. MEGAFAN, while I don't disagree with you that the science center is a perfectly reasonable top priority, I think some of your statements are a little over the top here. As a graduate of the school formerly known as the Georgetown School of Business, I think it's safe to say that I got absolutely zero value out of Georgetown's science facilities. While science may touch on many aspects of life, apparently business isn't one of them, as Gtown requires zero classes in the sciences in order to obtain a BS in Business Administration. As to the assertion that Georgetown's improvement in Science facilities will somehow improve the value of my degree, I think we're all overstating the impact US News rankings have on potential employers. Of the few people I have interviewed for my company, I have never once taken into account where their school fell in the rankings. Now, did I ignore what school they went to? No, of course not, but for the most part I'd developed my own biases that affect me far more than anything US News would ever print (for instance, that all Duke students are evil, and will burn in hell before I'd ever offer any of them a job). Do these rankings affect the number of companies recruiting at schools -- certainly. However, to an alumnus, I think their impact has very little value, and for each year you are removed from that degree, that impact becomes less important. Georgetown could fall into the Potomac tomorrow, and most people would still look at it on my resume and think, "Yeah, that's a pretty good school". As a GSB alum, I've supported the business school when I could, and am quite happy to see them nearing a new building. My limited experience as an undergrad saw my premed friends (who also happened to be the most fairweather Hoya hoops fans, often skipping games for such lame excuses as "studying") spend their final semesters trying desperately to get into intro business classes. I did not see such clamoring on the part of my fellow business students. Okay, that really had nothing to do with my argument, more just poking fun at some college friends. Back to our topic... If I went straight from undergraduate debt to a boatload more postgraduate debt like many science majors do, I doubt I'd be coughing up more for a science building either. However, I'm guessing people are most willing to donate within the first few years of graduation, as their ties to the university are still quite strong. If that means it's tough to raise money for science facilities, as the alumni from those programs are still heavy in debt in their formative donating years, then perhaps the university needs to find a way to keep alumni connected to the hilltop longer. As I think we can all agree, hoops is a great way to do that. Does that mean hoops should be higher priority than science, I don't know. Does it mean I'm less of a fan of Georgetown if I think so, I should certainly think not.
|
|