PG article on Pitt's exploration of reverting to private status

[CrazyPaco]

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/ed...Pennsylvania-legislature/stories/201802220165

Summary: Pitt doesn't want to do it, but would be foolish not to contemplate and prepare for that possible eventuality considering what has and is going on with state funding of the university.

 

[DiehardPanther]

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/ed...Pennsylvania-legislature/stories/201802220165

Summary: Pitt doesn't want to do it, but would be foolish not to contemplate and prepare for that possible eventuality considering what has and is going on with state funding of the university.

What are the benefits to going Private?

 

[Genaccc]

I don't know all of it, but one of the big ones would be that the state has no authority with the school anymore. No board members who were selected by the state. No say in the curriculum. etc.

 

[21Guns.]

I would imagine also a few thousand pages of less paper work. More flexible enrollment and tuition. I believe it probably make getting constructions projects done easier due to less regulation.

I have said numerous times before that the state should stop all funding to the state related universities and focus that money on reducing tuition of the state owned universities. Temple, Pitt, Penn State. Lincoln is the only school that I think would be severely hurt by this.

 

[CrazyPaco]

What are the benefits to going Private?

First some semantic clarifications...Pitt is actually legally private: privately owned and operated. All assets of the university are under the control of the board of trustees and the trustees have power to select all of the officers of the university and a 2/3rds controlling majority of the governing board.

Pitt is categorized as public by the Carnegie Classifications because it offers tuition discounts to citizens of the Commonwealth. That's where everyone gets the "public" university thing and how it is placed in that bucket in either-or categorization situations. However, depending on the situation that most benefits Pitt, it will use its private or public status to define itself. For instance, it uses its private status to protect itself from open record laws, but uses its public status in lobbying for funding.

Pitt's official status is "state-related" and it is considered an instrumentality of the state, but enjoys non-preferred funding status (meaning its appropriations come from outside the main state budget appropriations). It also gets infrastructure grants from the state that have helped pay for facilities from Hillman Library to the Petersen Events Center. Some are partially funded by the state, others have been entirely funded by Pitt (all of the new dorms, Petersen Sports Complex). The state has also given Pitt the power to issues its own bonds (something, for instance, that UPMC does not enjoy). Temple is the same status, as is Lincoln. PSU is slightly different in its make because its history as a land grant is different and the relationship to the state longer, and this is primarily reflected in its board makeup, but it is also categorized as a "state-related" university.

The original deal to become state related university in 1966 was that the Commonwealth would provide 33% of the university's budget for 33% representation on its board and discounted tuition for its citizens.

None of that answered your question.

First off, it is not something Pitt is seeking to do.

The advantages would be that it would be much easier to budget and plan because you will be better able to project revenues that aren't beholden to the political whims of Harrisburg. There wouldn't be this annual roller coaster ride. In addition, every time Pitt is delayed getting state appropriations, it costs millions for Pitt to essentially front the money that is held up. Pitt would also be freed from political pressures that come attached, officially or not, to accepting public funding. Lobbying activities and expenses could be reduced, as well as the necessitated reporting. As noted above, there would be more freedom in setting enrollment and tuition goals. It could work to enhance the university's undergrad reputation...or not...but there is generally more cache with "private" for whatever reason, at least on the undergrad level.

At this point, the in-state tuition discounts that Pitt gives out aren't even close to being covered by the state's actual appropriations. Of course, even with the reduced levels, you are still out $100+ million a year in funding and that is a huge chunk that is not easily replaced. The appropriations is still more than Pitt's annual disbursements from its endowment earnings. In essence, you'd have to double the current endowment to make up the difference. So really, the difference is made up in tuition increases. What would likely happen is the in-state tuition discount would be phased out, while out-of-state tuition drops, and the two end up meeting somewhere in between.

If appropriations were to follow the current trend and were cut even more, the way I see it potentially playing out over time is Pitt's main campus phasing out/reducing the in-state tuition discounts but leaving them intact for the regional campuses. Of course, this is already sort of the case because tuition is cheaper at the regionals, but I can see it becoming even more disparate. In essence the regionals would remain public, but the main campus would be private. I don't think the regionals can survive unless they have public support of some sort.

 

[DiehardPanther]

First some semantic clarifications...Pitt is actually legally private: privately owned and operated. All assets of the university are under the control of the board of trustees and the trustees have power to select all of the officers of the university and a 2/3rds controlling majority of the governing board.

Pitt is categorized as public by the Carnegie Classifications because it offers tuition discounts to citizens of the Commonwealth. That's where everyone gets the "public" university thing and how it is placed in that bucket in either or categorization situations. However, depending on the situation that most benefits Pitt, it will use its private or public status to define itself. For instance, it uses its private status to protect itself from open record laws, but uses its public status in lobbying for funding.

Pitt's official status is "state-related" and it is considered an instrumentality of the state, but enjoys non-preferred funding status (meaning its appropriations come from outside the main state budget appropriations). It also gets infrastructure grants from the state that have helped pay for facilities from Hillman Library to the Petersen Events Center. Some are partially funded by the state, others have been entirely funded by Pitt (all of the new dorms, Petersen Sports Complex). The state has also given Pitt the power to issues its own bonds (something, for instance, that UPMC does not enjoy). Temple is the same status, as is Lincoln. PSU is slightly different in its make because it history is different, and this is primarily reflected in its board makeup, but is also categorized as a "state-related" university.

The original deal to become state related university in 1966 was that the Commonwealth would provide 33% of the university's budget for 33% representation on its board and discounted tuition for its citizens.

None of that answered your question.

First off, it is not something Pitt is seeking to do.

The advantages would be that it would be much easier to budget because you will be better able to project revenues that aren't beholden to the political whims of Harrisburg. There wouldn't be this annual roller coaster ride. In addition, every time Pitt is delayed getting state appropriations, it costs millions for Pitt to essentially front the money that is held up. Pitt would also be freed from political pressures that come attached, officially or not, to accepting public funding. Lobbying activities and expenses could be reduced, as well as the necessitated reporting. As noted above, there would be more freedom in setting enrollment and tuition goals. It could work to enhance the university's undergrad reputation...or not.

At this point, the in-state tuition discounts that Pitt gives out aren't even close to being covered by the state's actual appropriations. Of course, even with the reduced levels, you are still out $100+ million a year in funding and that is a huge chunk that is not easily replaced.

The way I see it potentially playing out over time is Pitt's main campus phasing out/reducing the in-state tuition discounts but leaving them intact for the regional campuses. Of course, this is already sort of the case because tuition is cheaper at the regionals, but I can see it becoming even more disparate. In essence the regionals would remain public, but the main campus would be private. I don't think the regionals can survive unless they have public support of some sort.

Thank you.

Are they required to have a certain number of in-state students if they receive state funding? I would just take the money from the state and recruit more nationally if there isn’t a quota. I would also increase the number of online courses to generate more revenue.

 

[CrazyPaco]

Thank you.

Are they required to have a certain number of in-state students if they receive state funding? I would just take the money from the state and recruit more nationally if there isn’t a quota. I would also increase the number of online courses to generate more revenue.

There is no quota that I know of. However, the optics would look bad if it shifted dramatically. And of course, it is always easier to recruit students in your backyard than 2,000 miles away.

 

[omega]

There is no quota that I know of. However, the optics would look bad if it shifted dramatically. And of course, it is always easier to recruit students in your backyard than 2,000 miles away.

That is true unless those student play football.

 

[PITTsburghFAN]

There is no quota that I know of. However, the optics would look bad if it shifted dramatically. And of course, it is always easier to recruit students in your backyard than 2,000 miles away.

Paco - great insights as always. Thanks for the clarification.

As to "quotas" for Commonwealth students... in my observation, Pitt's support for accepting local students has tracked with the state's financial support. My daughter had superb academic qualifications from Pine Richland and was accepted to main campus but with very little financial aid. She got a better deal going to Maryland, in fact. My oldest son was a Central Catholic grad, once a virtual feeder school to Pitt. I was astounded, at his graduation, to see how few of those young men were accepted to Pitt Main.

My youngest, a graduate of a Catholic academy in the WPIAL, tried to play the "my parents were both Pitt grads, why can't I get accepted to main campus?" card. A generously offered visit to the head of academic acceptance showed him how incredibly selective main campus now is. I think it was something like 1 in 20+ applications being accepted!

But I've had confirmed that like credentials between out-of-region students and in-region students strong favored those from afar. My niece, a salutatorian from her regional high school, also received a very spare financial aid package from Pitt... but she did attend.

So, from what I see - Pitt is, in fact, much more interested in the student from 2,000 miles away than, say, the one from 2 blocks down Fifth Ave.

 

[Saboteur]

Paco - great insights as always. Thanks for the clarification.

As to "quotas" for Commonwealth students... in my observation, Pitt's support for accepting local students has tracked with the state's financial support. My daughter had superb academic qualifications from Pine Richland and was accepted to main campus but with very little financial aid. She got a better deal going to Maryland, in fact. My oldest son was a Central Catholic grad, once a virtual feeder school to Pitt. I was astounded, at his graduation, to see how few of those young men were accepted to Pitt Main.

My youngest, a graduate of a Catholic academy in the WPIAL, tried to play the "my parents were both Pitt grads, why can't I get accepted to main campus?" card. A generously offered visit to the head of academic acceptance showed him how incredibly selective main campus now is. I think it was something like 1 in 20+ applications being accepted!

But I've had confirmed that like credentials between out-of-region students and in-region students strong favored those from afar. My niece, a salutatorian from her regional high school, also received a very spare financial aid package from Pitt... but she did attend.

So, from what I see - Pitt is, in fact, much more interested in the student from 2,000 miles away than, say, the one from 2 blocks down Fifth Ave.

Every school is. Especially if you come from a different country.

 

[cruzer]

First some semantic clarifications...Pitt is actually legally private: privately owned and operated. All assets of the university are under the control of the board of trustees and the trustees have power to select all of the officers of the university and a 2/3rds controlling majority of the governing board.

Pitt is categorized as public by the Carnegie Classifications because it offers tuition discounts to citizens of the Commonwealth. That's where everyone gets the "public" university thing and how it is placed in that bucket in either-or categorization situations. However, depending on the situation that most benefits Pitt, it will use its private or public status to define itself. For instance, it uses its private status to protect itself from open record laws, but uses its public status in lobbying for funding.

Pitt's official status is "state-related" and it is considered an instrumentality of the state, but enjoys non-preferred funding status (meaning its appropriations come from outside the main state budget appropriations). It also gets infrastructure grants from the state that have helped pay for facilities from Hillman Library to the Petersen Events Center. Some are partially funded by the state, others have been entirely funded by Pitt (all of the new dorms, Petersen Sports Complex). The state has also given Pitt the power to issues its own bonds (something, for instance, that UPMC does not enjoy). Temple is the same status, as is Lincoln. PSU is slightly different in its make because its history as a land grant is different and the relationship to the state longer, and this is primarily reflected in its board makeup, but it is also categorized as a "state-related" university.

The original deal to become state related university in 1966 was that the Commonwealth would provide 33% of the university's budget for 33% representation on its board and discounted tuition for its citizens.

None of that answered your question.

First off, it is not something Pitt is seeking to do.

The advantages would be that it would be much easier to budget and plan because you will be better able to project revenues that aren't beholden to the political whims of Harrisburg. There wouldn't be this annual roller coaster ride. In addition, every time Pitt is delayed getting state appropriations, it costs millions for Pitt to essentially front the money that is held up. Pitt would also be freed from political pressures that come attached, officially or not, to accepting public funding. Lobbying activities and expenses could be reduced, as well as the necessitated reporting. As noted above, there would be more freedom in setting enrollment and tuition goals. It could work to enhance the university's undergrad reputation...or not...but there is generally more cache with "private" for whatever reason, at least on the undergrad level.

At this point, the in-state tuition discounts that Pitt gives out aren't even close to being covered by the state's actual appropriations. Of course, even with the reduced levels, you are still out $100+ million a year in funding and that is a huge chunk that is not easily replaced. The appropriations is still more than Pitt's annual disbursements from its endowment earnings. In essence, you'd have to double the current endowment to make up the difference. So really, the difference is made up in tuition increases. What would likely happen is the in-state tuition discount would be phased out, while out-of-state tuition drops, and the two end up meeting somewhere in between.

If appropriations were to follow the current trend and were cut even more, the way I see it potentially playing out over time is Pitt's main campus phasing out/reducing the in-state tuition discounts but leaving them intact for the regional campuses. Of course, this is already sort of the case because tuition is cheaper at the regionals, but I can see it becoming even more disparate. In essence the regionals would remain public, but the main campus would be private. I don't think the regionals can survive unless they have public support of some sort.

Paco:

Thanks for the overview. I did have to laugh when I read your statement...

"What would likely happen is the in-state tuition discount would be phased out, while out-of-state tuition drops, and the two end up meeting somewhere in between."

I'd put the odds of out of state tuition dropping at virtually zero. IMO it's more likely that Pitt gradually raises in state to match out of state.

Cruzer

 

[bwh05]

Paco:

Thanks for the overview. I did have to laugh when I read your statement...

"What would likely happen is the in-state tuition discount would be phased out, while out-of-state tuition drops, and the two end up meeting somewhere in between."

I'd put the odds of out of state tuition dropping at virtually zero. IMO it's more likely that Pitt gradually raises in state to match out of state.

Cruzer

Yea the odds we cut any tuition rates is zero percent

 

[CrazyPaco]

Paco:

Thanks for the overview. I did have to laugh when I read your statement...

"What would likely happen is the in-state tuition discount would be phased out, while out-of-state tuition drops, and the two end up meeting somewhere in between."

I'd put the odds of out of state tuition dropping at virtually zero. IMO it's more likely that Pitt gradually raises in state to match out of state.

Cruzer

Perhaps. Depends how quickly a change in status might occur.

 

[TIGER-PAUL]

If Pitt does, then what would Pa do with that 144m?

 

[jtownknowitall]

The fourteen presidents of the fourteen state owned college’s would each have his hand out.

 

[HailtoPitt]

If Pitt does, then what would Pa do with that 144m?

They would use it to delay to approaching reality that the current state schools have a financial structure that is unsustainable. The faculty of those schools are currently getting automatic raises of 7-17%, which is absolutely nuts.

 

[BurghGuy68]

Why does the Pitt BOT have a bunch of PSU people on it? I doubt they have Pitt's best interests in mind, academically and athletically.

 

[CrazyPaco]

Why does the Pitt BOT have a bunch of PSU people on it? I doubt they have Pitt's best interests in mind, academically and athletically.

Who on the BOT is a PSU person?

 

[ERICCARTMAN]

PITT will not revert to a private institution. PITT is simply tired of two things; not having an appropriation increase in many years and not knowing if and how much they will receive from the state for the upcoming school year. From a planning and budgetary standpoint, the delay in an enacted state budget plays havoc for PITT.

Unlike the late 1960's, PITT can move on without the state support. However a lot of in-state kids (mostly from western PA) will be shut out of from attending PITT. A lot of us that post on this board would not be PITT alumni without the state support.

 

[CrazyPaco]

PITT will not revert to a private institution. PITT is simply tired of two things; not having an appropriation increase in many years and not knowing if and how much they will receive from the state for the upcoming school year. From a planning and budgetary standpoint, the delay in an enacted state budget plays havoc for PITT.

Unlike the late 1960's, PITT can move on without the state support. However a lot of in-state kids (mostly from western PA) will be shut out of from attending PITT. A lot of us that post on this board would not be PITT alumni without the state support.

It is not a Pitt initiative to revert to fully private status, it is Pitt planning for the continued drying up and/or possible future elimination of state appropriations. Pitt's not going to reject state money, but in-state tuition discounts would likely go away if annual appropriations do.

 

[BurghGuy68]

Who on the BOT is a PSU person?

If u go to the university site and just pull up BOT it will list them all and if you hit their individual name, it will pull up a google search on them telling you where they went to school.

A lot of PSU folks. Do you think the PSU BOT has a lot of Pitt alumni on it? Yeah me neither.

 

[CrazyPaco]

If u go to the university site and just pull up BOT it will list them all and if you hit their individual name, it will pull up a google search on them telling you where they went to school.

A lot of PSU folks. Do you think the PSU BOT has a lot of Pitt alumni on it? Yeah me neither.

Thanks, but I know how to use a search engine.

There are 36 voting Pitt trustees. List the ones with Penn State degrees.

 

[BurghGuy68]

If u go to the university site and just pull up BOT it will list them all and if you hit their individual name, it will pull up a google search on them telling you where they went to school.

A lot of PSU folks. Do you think the PSU BOT has a lot of Pitt alumni on it? Yeah me neither.

List them.

They are there. Not gonna do the homework for you.

 

[CrazyPaco]

They are there. Not gonna do the homework for you.

You're wrong. You made, at best, a misleading statement about a "bunch of PSU people" being on Pitt's board. Back it up. Let's see how many have Pitt degrees vs PSU degrees.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

You're wrong. You made, at best, a misleading statement about a "bunch of PSU people" being on Pitt's board. Back it up. Let's see how many have Pitt degrees vs PSU degrees.

Popcorn getting ready

 

[TIGER-PAUL]

A lot of PSU folks

There is that navy guy I think on the senior leadership team? Maybe you're thinking of him? Rammicone? he is retiring.

 

[CrazyPaco]

Popcorn getting ready

Well, I can't leave you hanging. Of the 36 voting members on Pitt's current board, there are exactly two that attended Penn State, one of whom also holds a degree from Pitt. Both are Commonwealth Trustees, one appointed by the Governor and one appointed by the Pennsylvania Senate, meaning that Pitt had no real control in their appointment. I guess you could count another appointment by the PA House that graduated from the Dickinson School of Law 28 years before Penn State bought it, but I think most people would consider that quite a stretch.

Below are the academic degrees held by Pitt's voting board member so that this stupid urban myth can be put to rest. 27 of 36 seats are held by individuals with Pitt degrees. 22 of 24 seats within the university's control are held by individuals with Pitt degrees, and none of the seats within Pitt's control are held by anyone that attended PSU. At least one additional Commonwealth appointee that isn't a Pitt grad is married to one and has a parent that was one, and has endowed a fund at Pitt. No non-voting Special Trustees have a PSU degree and 11 of 14 are Pitt grads.

36 Pitt voting trustees (2017-18)

Chancellor (hired by BOT)
1. Patrick Gallagher - Benedictine College BS, Pitt A&S PhD '91

Term Trustees (elected by BOT)
2. Eva Tansky Blum (Chair) - Pitt A&S '70, Pitt LAW '73
3. John A. Barbour - Davidson BA, Vanderbilt JD
4. Mary Ellen Callahan - Pitt A&S '90, Chicago JD
5. James Covert - Pitt A&S '91
6. Edward J. Grefenstette - Georgetown BA, JD ; CMU MBA
7. Ira J. Gumberg - Pitt A&S '75, Harvard Adv Manag Prg
8. Dawne S. Hickton - Rochester BS, Pitt LAW '83
9. Patricia D. Horoho - UNC-Chapel Hill BS, Pitt NURS '92G
10. Terrence P. Laughlin - SFU BS, Pitt KGSB '81G
11. Robert G. Lovett - Pitt A&S '66, Duquesne JD
12. Roberta A. Luxbacher - Pitt ENG '78
13. Martha Hartie Munsch - Pitt A&S '70, Yale JD
14. John H. Pelusi Jr. - Pitt A&S '77, Pitt GSPIA '79
15. Stephen R. Tritch - Pitt ENG '71, Pitt BUS '77G
16. Thomas E. Richards - Pitt A&S '76, MIT Manag MS
17. Keith E. Schaefer - Pitt A&S '71, UCLA Business
18. William E. Strickland Jr. - Pitt A&S '70

Alumni Trustees (elected by BOT on nomination by PAA board)
19. Jane Bilewicz Allred - Pitt A&S '71, Kent State MEdu
20. Michael A. Bryson - Pitt A&S '68, Harvard MBA
21. S. Jeffrey Kondis - Pitt ENG '77, Pitt KGSB '82
22. F. James McCarl III - Pitt CGS '73
23. Larry J. Merloj - Pitt PHARM '78
24. Jack D. Smith - Pitt A&S '69, Pitt MED '73

Commonwealth Trustees (Appointed by PA Governor, House, or Senate)
25. Jay Costa Jr. - CCAC AS, IUP BS, Duquesne JD
26. Bradley J. Franc - PSU BS, Pitt LAW '87
27. Sy Holzer - Duquesne BS, Penn MS, Pitt KGSB Exec Manag Prg
28. Thomas O. Johnson II - Pitt UPG BS '99
29. William K. Lieberman - PSU BS
30. John A. Maher III - Duke AB, Australian GSM, Oxford
31. Herbert S. Shear - Southern Illinois BS, MS
32. Thomas VanKirk - Bucknell BS, Dickinson JD
33. Peter C. Varischetti - IUP BA, Duquesne JD
34. John J. Verbanac - Pitt CGS '90
35. Jake Wheatley Jr. - NC A&T BA, Pitt GPSIA '00
36. vacant


Pitt non-voting Special Trustees (elected by BOT)
G. Nicholas Beckwith III - Brown BS
Douglas M. Browning - Pitt A&S ’72, Hofstra JD
Louis R. Cestello - W&J BA, Duquesne MBA
David C. Chavern - Pitt A&S ’83, Villanova JD, Georgetown MBA
Brian Generalovich - Pitt A&S ’66, Pitt DENT ’68
Deborah J. Gillotti - Pitt A&S ’77, Georgetown MS
Tamara M. Haddad - Pitt A&S ’79
Robert M. Hernandez - Pitt A&S ’66, Penn MBA
Thomas M. Kurtz - UPJ ’77, St. Thomas MBA
Marlee S. Myers - Pitt A&S ’74, Pitt LAW ’77
Robert P. Randall - Pitt A&S ’67
Jeannine T. Schoenecker - Edinboro BA
Shawndya L. Simpson - Pitt A&S ’87, Pitt LAW ’90
Sam S. Zacharias - Pitt A&S ’64

 

[DiehardPanther]

Well, I can't leave you hanging. Of the 36 voting members on Pitt's current board, there are exactly two that attended Penn State. Both are Commonwealth Trustees, one appointed by the Governor and one appointed by the Pennsylvania Senate, meaning that Pitt had no real control in their appointment. I guess you could count another appointment by the PA house that graduated from the Dickinson School of Law 28 years before Penn State bought it, but I would consider that quite a stretch.

Below are the academic degrees held by Pitt's voting board member so that this stupid urban myth can be put to rest. 27 of 36 seats are held by individuals with Pitt degrees. 22 of 24 seats within the university's control are held by individuals with Pitt degrees. At least one additional Commonwealth appointee that isn't a Pitt grad is married to one and has a parent that was one, and has endowed a fund at Pitt.

36 Pitt voting trustees (2017-18)

Chancellor (hired by BOT)
1. Patrick Gallagher - BS Benedictine College, Pitt A&S PhD '91

Term Trustees (elected by BOT)
2. Eva Tansky Blum (Chair) - Pitt A&S '70, Pitt LAW '73
3. John A. Barbour - Davidson BA, Vanderbilt JD
4. Mary Ellen Callahan - Pitt A&S '90, Chicago JD
5. James Covert - Pitt A&S '91
6. Edward J. Grefenstette - Georgetown BA, JD ; CMU MBA
7. Ira J. Gumberg - Pitt A&S '75, Harvard Adv Manag Prg
8. Dawne S. Hickton - Rochester BS, Pitt LAW '83
9. Patricia D. Horoho - UNC-Chapel Hill BS, Pitt NURS '92G
10. Terrence P. Laughlin - SFU BS, Pitt KGSB '81G
11. Robert G. Lovett - Pitt A&S '66, Duquesne JD
12. Roberta A. Luxbacher - Pitt ENG '78
13. Martha Hartie Munsch - Pitt A&S '70, Yale JD
14. John H. Pelusi Jr. - Pitt A&S '77, Pitt GSPIA '79
15. Stephen R. Tritch - Pitt ENG '71, Pitt BUS '77G
16. Thomas E. Richards - Pitt A&S '76, MIT Manag MS
17. Keith E. Schaefer - Pitt A&S '71, UCLA Business
18. William E. Strickland Jr. - Pitt A&S '70

Alumni Trustees (elected by BOT on nomination by PAA board)
19. Jane Bilewicz Allred - Pitt A&S '71, Kent State MEdu
20. Michael A. Bryson - Pitt A&S '68, Harvard MBA
21. S. Jeffrey Kondis - Pitt ENG '77, Pitt KGSB '82
22. F. James McCarl III - Pitt CGS '73
23. Larry J. Merloj - Pitt PHARM '78
24. Jack D. Smith - Pitt A&S '69, Pitt MED '73

Commonwealth Trustees (Appointed by PA Governor, House, or Senate)
25. Jay Costa Jr. - CCAC AS, IUP BS, Duquesne JD
26. Bradley J. Franc - PSU BS, Pitt LAW '87
27. Sy Holzer - Duquesne BS, Penn MS, Pitt KGSB Exec Manag Prg
28. Thomas O. Johnson II - Pitt UPG BS '99
29. William K. Lieberman - PSU BS
30. John A. Maher III - Duke AB, Australian GSM, Oxford
31. Herbert S. Shear - Southern Illinois BS, MS
32. Thomas VanKirk - Bucknell BS, Dickinson JD
33. Peter C. Varischetti - IUP BA, Duquesne JD
34. John J. Verbanac - Pitt CGS '90
35. Jake Wheatley Jr. - NC A&T BA, Pitt GPSIA '00
36. vacant

Maybe he meant Gallagher’s Leadership Team. 2 of them are PS grads.

http://chancellor.pitt.edu/leadership

 

[CrazyPaco]

Maybe he meant Gallagher’s Leadership Team. 2 of them are PS grads.

http://chancellor.pitt.edu/leadership

Yeah, the premise was dumb and childish. These are professionals. And they are approved by the Board.

 

[bwh05]

Yeah, the premise was dumb and childish. These are professionals. And they are approved by the Board.

we can’t trust anyone who went to PSU and therefore they can’t be counted on to do a job at Pitt? That seems over the top.

 

[ERICCARTMAN]

Earth to CrazyPaco...

No one ever said that it was a PITT initiative to move to "fully private status."

 

[CrazyPaco]

we can’t hire anyone who went to PSU because they can’t be counted on to do a job at Pitt? That seems over the top.

You don't understand. There are secret agent moles trying to destroy Pitt under the very oblivious Board of Trustee's noses. These people pretend to be dedicated to the university by spending their entire professional career at it, and doing a good enough job to be retained and rewarded year after year, but are clearly responsible for Pitt being terrible in anything outside of their area of responsibility.

 

[HailtoPitt]

Yeah, the premise was dumb and childish. These are professionals. And they are approved by the Board.

It's certainly not childish to point out that the Chancellor's leadership team has 0 Pitt alums on it. Since that was brought up on here, they added a Pitt alum to that group, but it still has more PSU alums on it.

 

[OriginalEther]

Well, I can't leave you hanging. Of the 36 voting members on Pitt's current board, there are exactly two that attended Penn State, one of whom also holds a degree from Pitt. Both are Commonwealth Trustees, one appointed by the Governor and one appointed by the Pennsylvania Senate, meaning that Pitt had no real control in their appointment. I guess you could count another appointment by the PA House that graduated from the Dickinson School of Law 28 years before Penn State bought it, but I think most people would consider that quite a stretch.

Below are the academic degrees held by Pitt's voting board member so that this stupid urban myth can be put to rest. 27 of 36 seats are held by individuals with Pitt degrees. 22 of 24 seats within the university's control are held by individuals with Pitt degrees, and none of the seats within Pitt's control are held by anyone that attended PSU. At least one additional Commonwealth appointee that isn't a Pitt grad is married to one and has a parent that was one, and has endowed a fund at Pitt.

36 Pitt voting trustees (2017-18)

Chancellor (hired by BOT)
1. Patrick Gallagher - Benedictine College BS, Pitt A&S PhD '91

Term Trustees (elected by BOT)
2. Eva Tansky Blum (Chair) - Pitt A&S '70, Pitt LAW '73
3. John A. Barbour - Davidson BA, Vanderbilt JD
4. Mary Ellen Callahan - Pitt A&S '90, Chicago JD
5. James Covert - Pitt A&S '91
6. Edward J. Grefenstette - Georgetown BA, JD ; CMU MBA
7. Ira J. Gumberg - Pitt A&S '75, Harvard Adv Manag Prg
8. Dawne S. Hickton - Rochester BS, Pitt LAW '83
9. Patricia D. Horoho - UNC-Chapel Hill BS, Pitt NURS '92G
10. Terrence P. Laughlin - SFU BS, Pitt KGSB '81G
11. Robert G. Lovett - Pitt A&S '66, Duquesne JD
12. Roberta A. Luxbacher - Pitt ENG '78
13. Martha Hartie Munsch - Pitt A&S '70, Yale JD
14. John H. Pelusi Jr. - Pitt A&S '77, Pitt GSPIA '79
15. Stephen R. Tritch - Pitt ENG '71, Pitt BUS '77G
16. Thomas E. Richards - Pitt A&S '76, MIT Manag MS
17. Keith E. Schaefer - Pitt A&S '71, UCLA Business
18. William E. Strickland Jr. - Pitt A&S '70

Alumni Trustees (elected by BOT on nomination by PAA board)
19. Jane Bilewicz Allred - Pitt A&S '71, Kent State MEdu
20. Michael A. Bryson - Pitt A&S '68, Harvard MBA
21. S. Jeffrey Kondis - Pitt ENG '77, Pitt KGSB '82
22. F. James McCarl III - Pitt CGS '73
23. Larry J. Merloj - Pitt PHARM '78
24. Jack D. Smith - Pitt A&S '69, Pitt MED '73

Commonwealth Trustees (Appointed by PA Governor, House, or Senate)
25. Jay Costa Jr. - CCAC AS, IUP BS, Duquesne JD
26. Bradley J. Franc - PSU BS, Pitt LAW '87
27. Sy Holzer - Duquesne BS, Penn MS, Pitt KGSB Exec Manag Prg
28. Thomas O. Johnson II - Pitt UPG BS '99
29. William K. Lieberman - PSU BS
30. John A. Maher III - Duke AB, Australian GSM, Oxford
31. Herbert S. Shear - Southern Illinois BS, MS
32. Thomas VanKirk - Bucknell BS, Dickinson JD
33. Peter C. Varischetti - IUP BA, Duquesne JD
34. John J. Verbanac - Pitt CGS '90
35. Jake Wheatley Jr. - NC A&T BA, Pitt GPSIA '00
36. vacant

Well, that’s another Panther lair Boogeyman that’s been ritually slaughtered......

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

Maybe he meant Gallagher’s Leadership Team. 2 of them are PS grads.

http://chancellor.pitt.edu/leadership

Yeah,
That psu grad who’s been working at Pitt since 1988 seems suspect,
So does the other guy who was in the navy

 

[ThePanthers]

I've pretty much learned to quit arguing the "normal" Pitt boogeyman arguments from the same handful of posters.

 

[CrazyPaco]

I've pretty much learned to quit arguing the "normal" Pitt boogeyman arguments from the same handful of posters.

Most of them I have on ignore long ago, but often there are these urban myths out there that get innocently picked up by other people that don't know how uninformed these others are.

But I found it hilarious I was told to go do my homework by someone that clearly never did his.

 

[ThePanthers]

Most of them I have on ignore long ago, but often there are these urban myths out there that get innocently picked up by other people that don't know how uninformed these others are.

But I found it hilarious I was told to go do my homework by someone that clearly never did his.

The other one that is crazy to me is "cheap admin". They can only spend what they bring in, and they've constantly upped the ante for good coaches they have by keeping Dixon for year at his peak when almost every open job was coming after him and upping Narduzzi 2 out of the last 3 years.

Brought in some great coaches for soccer and Susie was a good hire despite it not working out.

Have upgraded most of their facilities and are still pulling together a master plan to continue to upgrade.

People expect them to run like a pro organization or like tOSU or someone while giving nothing.

I just have to shake my head. I know it's mainly the vocal minority.

 

[HailtoPitt]

I'm on Paco's ignore list for disagreeing with him, but I don't think it's an urban myth that Pitt's Board of Trustees "has a bunch of Penn State alums on it". This was the first time I have seen a post with that mentioned. An urban myth would be something like "Pitt has billions in its endowment and they can use part of that to build a new stadium". That is the type of thing I sometimes see on these forums.

As mentioned already, the poster probably was thinking of the Chancellor's Senior Leadership Team, which until several weeks ago consisted of 10 individuals, 2 of which were PSU alums and NONE of which were Pitt alums. That's a fact, like it or not, and we shouldn't have issues pointing out facts on here.

 

[HailtoPitt]

The other one that is crazy to me is "cheap admin". They can only spend what they bring in, and they've constantly upped the ante for good coaches they have by keeping Dixon for year at his peak when almost every open job was coming after him and upping Narduzzi 2 out of the last 3 years.

Brought in some great coaches for soccer and Susie was a good hire despite it not working out.

Have upgraded most of their facilities and are still pulling together a master plan to continue to upgrade.

People expect them to run like a pro organization or like tOSU or someone while giving nothing.

I just have to shake my head. I know it's mainly the vocal minority.

What made Susie a good hire?