September 25, 2014
Sep 25 01:37 SCSU Spring Enrollment Sep 25 03:00 Dorholt vs. Knoblach is key matchup Sep 25 14:54 KSTP Truth Test: Dayton ad gets C Sep 25 16:47 Questioning Nolan's support of mining Sep 25 17:28 Gardner's mini-surge good news
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
SCSU Spring Enrollment
Spring Enrollment Omen?
by Silence Dogood
Periodically throughout the semester, Jered Magsam, a Data Analyst in the Office of Strategy, Planning and Effectiveness, provides weekly progress reports about admissions for SCSU. The data gives a year-to-date comparison with the prior year.
Depending on the time of the report, the information can be more or less useful. Right now the report shows that applications for Fall 2015 are up considerably.
Not much analysis of the data is necessary. Compared to this fall, applications to SCSU are up 36.18% compared to the previous fall. Will this increase in applications actually result in an increase in enrollment next fall is anyone's guess. The signs are hopeful but don't bet the house on increased enrollment. As an example, consider the Minnesota Vikings went through the recent preseason undefeated winning all four games but I don't think too many people actually made their reservations for the Super Bowl next spring, which by the way will happen long before classes begin next fall.
Much closer is spring semester. The data for Spring 2015 is shown below.
Fewer students enter college in the spring semester so the number of applications is typically considerably smaller. However, for a year-to-year comparison, applications are down 6.7%. Clearly, this is a small number of students so the change of even a couple of students could change the percentages significantly.
The numbers of transfer students entering mid-year is typically larger than the number of First Year Students. The numbers reported are shown below.
With a larger number of transfer students, the numbers might be more reliable. However, it is interesting to note that both the number of First Year Students and Transfer Students are down by similar percentages, 6.7% and 5.6%, respectively. These numbers don't bode well for spring semester.
The data shows that while the number of applications for spring semester for First Year Students are down 6.7%, the number of admission offers are down 9.3%. This might be a sign that admission standards are being raised or that fewer qualified students are applying. However, no data has been presented by the administration to support or contradict this conjecture.
The data also shows that while the numbers of applications for spring semester for Transfer Students are down 5.6%, the number of admission offers are up 5.3%. This might mean that transfer admissions are being loosened or that higher quality students are transferring. Again, no data has been presented to support either hypothesis.
While there is still just over three months before the start of Spring semester classes and more First Year Students and Transfer Students will continue to apply and be offered admission, it appears that the trends in new enrollments will have very little effect on the overall enrollment numbers. The obvious reason for this is quite simple; the vast majority of the FYE for spring semester comes from retention of fall semester students. Consider that for Spring Semester, according to the Spring 2014 Weekly Admit Report as of January 31, 2014, there were 834 admission offers and 505 eventual enrollments for a yield rate of offer to enrollment of 60.6%. This yield rate is much higher than for fall semester and without historical data doesn't tell us much. If the yield rate for the prior year was 40%, I'm sure there would be corks popping in the Admission Office. However, if the rate had be 80% the prior year, silence would have been the more likely scenario.
Ultimately, how important is 505 students? From the 30th Day enrollment data, last spring SCSU had a headcount enrollment of 13,550 (134 NEF and 371 NET), which translates into 3.7%. So if the NEF/NET headcount had been 10% higher than it actually was the enrollment would have increased a whopping 0.37%! Of course, if 3.7% of the enrollment was NEF/NET, then 96.27% of the spring enrollment is returning students. The 30th Day Enrollment for SCSU showed a decline of 6.2% FYE so even confusing headcount enrollment with FYE enrollment, the effect of the NEF/NET numbers on Spring enrollment is very small.
It's a shame that no data on retention rates from fall semester to spring semester has been presented. If returning students represent more than 96% of the headcount enrollment in spring semester, it just might be more important to look at these rates rather than focus on the 3.7% of the total enrollment. An old English proverb comes to mind: "Penny wise and pound (dollar) foolish." Essentially, it seems that we are focusing on the small parts of the enrollment while overlooking the largest part. It might not be the best analogy but it seems to tie quite nicely into the administration's fascination with headcount enrollments rather than the much more important FYE enrollments.
Posted Thursday, September 25, 2014 1:37 AM
No comments.
Dorholt vs. Knoblach is key matchup
According to this article by MPR's Tom Scheck, the Jim Knoblach vs. Zach Dorholt race is one of the targeted races that might decide who has control of the Minnesota House of representatives:
For the most part, House Democrats have tried to build a firewall around 15 DFL seats they're in jeopardy of losing in November. One of those seats is in St. Cloud, where first-term incumbent Zach Dorholt is running for his political life against former state Rep. Jim Knoblach.
The House DFL Caucus wasted no time defending Dorholt, spending at least $40,000 on radio ads. "Zach Dorholt delivered $11 million for local schools," an announcer says. "On the other hand, Jim Knoblach won't fight for middle class priorities and would bring Minnesota back to gridlock."
That's typical DFL spin. I won't be polite. Simply put, it's BS and the DFL knows it. Zach Dorholt voted for raising the cigarette tax, which has hurt convenience stores because smokers are stocking up when they visit the nearby casinos.
In that same Tax Bill, Dorholt voted for the Senate Legislative Office Building. The SLOB is a palace for part-time legislators. It's $90,000,000 that should've been spent fixing Minnesota's roads and bridges, not building a palace for politicians.
That certainly isn't looking out for the middle class. This isn't helping the middle class either:
Among the legislation Dorholt takes credit for are measures that provided state funding to expand the St. Cloud Civic Center, increased funding for schools and gave more state money to St. Cloud State University.
Apparently, Rep. Dorholt and the DFL-dominated legislature think it's wise to write St. Cloud State a blank check, then ignore the University's multiple catastrophes.
Last year, the House Higher Ed Committee, where Rep. Dorholt is the Vice-Chair, met 4 times. During a non-budget year, the Pelowski-Dorholt committee had tons of time to dig into SCSU's problems. They couldn't be bothered by that. They didn't pay attention to Chancellor Rosenstone until months after he'd received a contract extension and a hefty pay raise :
Monday's announcement that the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system gave its top executive a raise and a new, three-year contract, last October, drew criticism from a top lawmaker and the union that represents the faculty at seven state universities.
Chancellor Steven Rosenstone will make $387,250 in base salary for the coming school year, a 1.8 percent increase. He also will receive a $43,160 boost to allowances for transportation and other expenses, MnSCU said.
I'd love hearing Rep. Dorholt's explanation of how letting Chancellor Rosenstone get a $27,250 per year pay raise and a $43,160 per year increase in Rosenstone's allowances is fighting for middle class priorities.
Rep. Dorholt, how is voting for the forced unionization of in-home child care providers fighting for middle class priorities? That sounds like you're fighting for your special interest allies that are knocking on doors in your district .
The truth is that Rep. Dorholt is a rubberstamp for Gov. Dayton and the special interests that help him during campaign season. That isn't a champion for the middle class.
Posted Thursday, September 25, 2014 3:00 AM
Comment 1 by Steve Schafer at 25-Sep-14 04:54 PM
Has anyone out there done any polling on this race?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 25-Sep-14 05:29 PM
I haven't seen anything on it yet.
KSTP Truth Test: Dayton ad gets C
Tom Hauser's Truth Test of Gov. Dayton's ad might've gotten an A in accuracy if he hadn't tried marketing himself as a tax cutter:
NARRATOR: Cut taxes while increasing our rainy day fund and investing in education.
HAUSER: It's true that Gov. Dayton increased the rainy day fund and invested more in education but it's false to say that Dayton cut taxes, so false that it nearly overwhelms everything else that's true in this ad. In fact, Dayton and the DFL legislature raised taxes by $2,000,000,000 in the 2013 session. In 2014, they cut taxes $508,000,000, partially by repealing taxes that they'd increased the year before. So over those 2 years, there's a net tax increase of $1,500,000,000.
Later in the segment, Hauser said that "He admits it. He ran for governor by promising he'd raise taxes." I'll repeat what I've said previously. Repealing taxes that you just raised and/or created isn't a tax cut. It's a reduction in the size of the tax increase.
Gov. Dayton's first instinct, which is shared by House and Senate DFL leadership, is to propose raising taxes first, then submitting a mulligan budget later when political pressure mounts :
In 2011, Gov. Dayton proposed massive tax increases, including a top income tax bracket of 10.95% and a 3% surcharge for people making $1,000,000 or more. When the deficit forecast was revised down from $6,200,000,000 to $5,030,000,000, Gov. Dayton immediately dropped the income tax surcharge. Eventually, the GOP majority forced him to drop his tax increases.
Raising taxes won't be Jeff Johnson's first instinct. He'll ride herd on bureaucrats that don't have the taxpayers' best interests at heart because that's who he is:
The difference between Jeff Johnson and Gov. Dayton is stunning. Gov. Dayton starts with the assumption that every state agency should have its budget increased. Jeff Johnson doesn't start with the assumption that agencies' budgets should be automatically increased.
Jeff Johnson has a lengthy history as Hennepin County Commissioner of highlighting government spending money foolishly. He'll continue that habit as governor.
Minnesota families don't need a governor who raises taxes first, spends money foolishly second, then tells them that he's cut taxes on the campaign trail. Minnesota families deserve a governor who's proven that he'll be the taxpayers' watchdog.
Jeff Johnson is the only gubernatorial candidate who fits that last description.
Posted Thursday, September 25, 2014 2:54 PM
No comments.
Questioning Nolan's support of mining
The Land Rights Network of the American Land Rights Association issued this statement this morning:
Groups Blast Minnesota Congressman Nolan on EPA Vote
Property rights groups are harshly criticizing MN 8th District Congressman Rick Nolan for his recent vote against a bill designed to block the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's controversial 88-page proposed regulations that would dramatically expand federal control over the nation' s lands and water.
The bill (H.R. 5078) passed the House of Representatives on a 262-153 bi-partisan vote. Minnesota democrats Collin Peterson and Tim Walz voted with the three Republican members of the MN delegation.
Congressman Nolan voted with the two metropolitan Democrats in opposing the bill.
The bill, if it becomes law, would block EPA's regulatory proposal, which many are claiming is the biggest federal land and water power grab in history. The bill provides an opportunity for EPA to restart the process requiring formal federal agency consultation with state and local officials.
Chuck Cushman, founder and executive director of the American Land Rights Association said this issue has been a top priority for his organization since Minnesota Congressman James Oberstar introduced the Clean Water Restoration Act in 2007. That bill failed to gain congressional approval and became a defining issue in the defeat of Oberstar in 2010.
"Now EPA is trying to drastically increase federal land and water controls under the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act by going around Congress," said Cushman. "A vote for H.R. 5078 should have been a no-brainer, especially for a northern Minnesota Congressman. Representative Nolan either doesn't get it, or he's beholden to the radical environmental lobby," he added.
Cushman and Don Parmeter, a northern Minnesota native, led a successful national grassroots campaign to defeat the Oberstar bill beginning in 2007. Parmeter is co-founder of the National Water & Conservation Alliance, and is acting chairman of MnPure, a new statewide property rights group established to restore property rights and ensure access to and use of public lands and waters.
Parmeter said he was surprised and disappointed by Nolan's vote. "Perhaps more than any other congressional district in the country, people in Minnesota's 8th district have been national leaders in advancing successful local alternatives to federal top-down initiatives," said Parmeter. "Local, grassroots alternatives are more lasting, less costly and more consistent with constitutional principles," he added. "It appears that Congressman Nolan is extremely out of touch with his constituents on this issue. This issue is not about the environment, it's about governance."
The history of the water jurisdiction debate in Minnesota goes back to the 1950's. Then Congressman John Blatnik, Oberstar's predecessor, authored a federal water bill as chairman of the powerful Public Works Committee. In vetoing the bill, President Dwight Eisenhower had this to say: "The principal responsibility for protecting the quality of our waters must be exercised where it naturally reposes--at the local level."
And in 1995, the Minnesota Legislature approved a state water rights statute with strong, bi-partisan support. Prominent northern Minnesota Democrats authored and co-authored that bill, including former Speaker of the House Irv Anderson, former Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee Bob Lessard, and current Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk.
This calls into question whether Rep. Nolan actually supports mining or if his positioning on PolyMet is just his playing politics to get past Stewart Mills. This sentence tells me that it's Nolan playing politics:
Property rights groups are harshly criticizing MN 8th District Congressman Rick Nolan for his recent vote against a bill designed to block the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's controversial 88-page proposed regulations that would dramatically expand federal control over the nation' s lands and water.
This is in step with the late Jim Oberstar's ACCWA legislation. ACCWA is the acronym for America's Commitment to the Clean Water Act. That bill would've essentially given the federal government, starting with the EPA, virtual total control of water in the United States.
I know that sounds the ranting of a fanatic but it's fact :
The 'waters of the U.S.' issue is back. H. R. 5088, America's Commitment to Clean Water Act (ACCWA), was recently introduced by House Committee of Transportation Chairman Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.)
Like Oberstar's previous bill, ACCWA does two things. First, it eliminates the term 'navigable' from all sections of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The term 'navigable waters of the U.S.' is used more than 80 times in the CWA. NACo continues to oppose the removal of 'navigable' from the act, because of the danger its absence poses to years of hard-won jurisdictional parameters.
Second, ACCWA removes the reference to 'activities affecting' those waters and redefines 'waters of the U.S.' by using a hybrid of current agency regulatory definitions. While ACCWA uses language based on existing agency regulations for a 'water of the U.S.,' it is not identical to existing regulations. Furthermore, certain sections of the existing regulations were deleted and new language was added to the 'waters of the U.S.' definition in ACCWA.
If Nolan is still siding with the environmental activists' agenda, why should people think he's truly pro-mining? It's impossible to please 2 masters.
Posted Thursday, September 25, 2014 4:47 PM
Comment 1 by Alan Maki at 26-Sep-14 08:57 AM
The only flaw in this argument is that Sterwart Mills said he also would have voted against the bill because it has far greater implications for the district than this simplistic post would lead one to believe. If you want to debate legislation, let's debate legislation. But sugar coating a couple of outsiders' take on what's happening in the 8th is plain lazy.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 26-Sep-14 07:00 PM
First, it's Stewart, not Sterwart. Next, I'd love to see you find a hardline Iron Ranger that thinks the EPA doesn't have enough authority. From the start of his campaign, Stewart's fought against the EPA's overreach. That's why I don't believe that Stewart said that he would've voted against this bill. I'm positive that he would've voted to restrict the EPA's overreach. Unless you provide proof, I'll put your statement in the 'liberals will say anything' category.
Comment 2 by Terry Stone at 27-Sep-14 12:54 PM
This isn't about clean water nor is it about governance. This is the quintessential property rights issue of this century. Terms like "hydrology cycle" and "lands that drain into to waterways" leave no mistake that the EPA sees no role for property rights.
Gardner's mini-surge good news
This research isn't good news for Mark Udall's re-election bid against Cory Gardner:
Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) Continues To Trail Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO). 'Republican challenger Rep. Cory Gardner enjoyed a two-point lead over incumbent Colorado Sen. Mark Udall, a Democrat in a new poll released Thursday morning.' (Brandon Rittiman, 'Gardner Holds Slight Lead Over Udall In Recent Polling,' KUSA , 9/25/14)
•According To A New PPP Poll, Gardner Leads Udall By 2 Points, 47 Percent To 45 Percent. (Public Policy Polling Poll, 652 LV, MoE 2.6%, 9/19-21/14)
Today's Poll Is The Third Consecutive Poll Showing Udall Down In The Polls. 'However, the poll is third in a row recently to show an edge for Gardner, a trend which will have Democrats paying close attention to their effort to retain the seat.' (Brandon Rittiman, 'Gardner Holds Slight Lead Over Udall In Recent Polling,' KUSA, 9/25/14)
There's a distinct anti-Democrat trend in Colorado. It isn't just that Rep. Gardner is leading Udall, though that's big. Gardner isn't the only high profile race where the Republican challenger is leading the Democrat incumbent.
It's that Bob Beauprez is leading Gov. John Hickenlooper , (D-CO).
If this pro-Republican trend continues, this might turn into a pretty positive year for Republicans. From a nationwide standpoint, Kansas becomes less important if Gardner wins in Colorado. Simply put, Mitch McConnell will be the Senate Majority Leader next January if Gardner wins this November.
This is important:
The poll found only 8 percent of Colorado voters were undecided.
In congressional and senatorial races, the undecided generally break 2:1 for the challenger. If that's true in this instance, that means Rep. Gardner will finish with 52%-53% of the vote. That isn't a big margin but it'd represent a gigantic victory for Republicans. That's all that'd matter in this instance.
Posted Thursday, September 25, 2014 5:28 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 25-Sep-14 10:08 PM
Gary:
I think the governor's race has the wide gap because of the gun control law that the Democrats in Colorado shoved down the throats of the people of Colorado. Since the governor signing it makes it possible it's easy for every upset Colorado to vote him out that makes it harder for him to get votes.
Gardner might be recovering from missteps where he had ticked off conservatives. He might have a bigger lead now if it wasn't for that.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
