I can't help but wonder if it was a punitive decrease to punish OU for the incorrect reporting.
I think the first step was an adjustment based on criteria when the reporting was corrected, and the second was punitive.
I also think anyone would be hard pressed to find a real correlation to % of alumni giving and real quality of education. Dollars are dollars, and how many and how they are spent is way more important than gross number of donors.
Huh, I think it hadn't really sunk in to me that it was the alumni giving rate and not the totals that were misrepresented. I'm not sure that could be more meaningless to quality of education received.
Total gifts you could easily argue having an impact since that is the university's bottom line, but giving rate?
the idea is that alumni that are generally satisfied with their experience at an institution are more likely to give to it... therefore, the rate in which alumni give is used as an indicator of student satisfaction. i think there are flaws in that logic, but I think that's the general reason for including it.
https://oklahoman.com/article/563326...state-lawmaker
another Seth Rich?
Nondoc is reporting gunshot wound, but not the cause or manner. No word on if a gun was recovered. https://nondoc.com/2019/06/06/former...hols-has-died/
Boren is cutting ties and universities investigation is coming to a close.
https://oklahoman.com/article/563376...ty-of-oklahoma
Won't give another dime to my Alma Mater. Pure politics by henchmen out to destroy a Man who lived his life serving Oklahoma.
Looks like next week we will hear from the grand jury.
All this started with hiring this very expensive and very politically aligned law firm to investigate the overstatement of one minor statistic to US News and World Reports. Why was that necessary in the first place? Didn't they already have the real #'s and couldn't have the university just self-reported? And as it happened, what was the worst case scenario? You come clean, they suspend your ranking for one year. Hardly the end of the world.
When later questioned about the need for this large expense, all the regents talked about was the sensitivity of the sexual harassment claims. But, we have been told, that's not why they were hired in the first place, especially because this Title IX report didn't come until after OU was already using them.
So, it just so happens that when this Title IX report was filed and the university was obligated to investigate, they had already retained Jones Day and then just put them on that issue as well.
It's very hard to believe these things weren't related. I'd still like to know the reason behind the timing of this Title IX report; how this employee came to report it in November even though they were required by law to report immediately upon becoming aware, which was several months earlier.
Then, throw on top of it the Gallogly disaster and him suddenly clearing out without any real explanation.
This has just been a big ugly, public mess and it sure doesn't seem that the people involved are being completely honest.
Time to take the Boren name off the OSU Veterinary Hospital.
Is this how the "secret deal" finishes? First Gallogly leaves, then Boren leaves, the investigation ends, and the school resets?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks