Mackovic's salary unreasonably high
The Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) is going through a really tough time these days. A financial windfall has landed in its lap by way of Prop 301. In addition, the Arizona state legislature has finally become educationally friendly and willing to consider increasing budgets for education including the UA.
But, that is not all. The Regents also have another very deep well from which to haul up and spread good cheer. They are seriously considering an increase of 57 percent in the annual salary of our new football coach. Stop and think for a moment. When was the last time students eking out subsistence living, working at the local eateries to pay for tuition and university faculty, received even a 5 percent increase in their salaries, let alone a whopping 57 percent?
What is even more galling is that we are talking about compensation for service that amounts to $800,000 per year. Stop again and think: how many staff people (at an average annual salary of $25,000) would this sum support even if ABOR were to give the coach a comfortable annual salary of a quarter of a million? How many new instructors, at a 'lavish' annual salary of $50,000 could the UA hire for the business college or the department of communications where students cannot graduate because there aren't enough instructors to teach? Or, how many hours of childcare could the UA subsidize for the children of our staff-people and students?
Raphael Gruener, Ph.D.
professor of physiology
Woods needs a slice of humble pie
I read a Loren Woods quote in the Arizona Daily Star on Jan. 24, and I just couldn't sit still any longer. "Everyone thinks I should be scoring 40 points a game, but I don't really care about that. I've toned down my offense for the past 3 or 4 games, and look what our team has done," Woods said. Before the season, he talked to the national media on this year's Arizona team going undefeated wire to wire, and was quoted in Cat Tracks magazine saying "There is no limit to what I can do on the floor." Perhaps there's never been a UA player that got more pre-season hype, (many publications touted Woods as the number one NBA prospect in all the land) and there is no question that there has never been a UA player that let that hype swell his head more.
First of all, no one thinks Woods should be scoring 40 points a game. Nobody. Woods is not that kind of player. Second of all, the team's success over the last three or four games is not a result of Woods toning down anything, the offense was never built around him. The team's success has come because of everyone's unselfish play. Woods' "team-player speech" parades a noble sentiment, but if he still thinks he is the focal point of the team, he is out of touch with reality. Earlier in the year Woods was ejected for arguing an official's call. Only a handful of NBA prima donna superstars whine like that. Woods should show a little class. Immediately, after the game he spoke of his ejection as the emotional climax that sparked us to victory. Later after a scolding from Rosborough, Woods issued an apology calling himself a "disgrace." Think he finally got it right. As soon as Woods realizes that he is not the center of the universe, this Arizona team just might become the powerhouse Woods thought we were.
Benjamin Kalt
Spanish junior
Comm problem not so dire
Blake Smith's Jan. 25 article on the high student-faculty ratio in the communication department seemed to contain some figures that just don't add up. The article featured a sub-headline reading, "15 instructors spread out among 800 students." The text of the article explained that "Currently, there are 15 full-time and adjunct faculty to teach more than 800 undergraduates..." Now, 800 students for 15 faculty gives the student-faculty ratio of slightly less than 54-to-1. However, in a chart featured later in the article, the communication department claims to have a ratio of 100-to-1. What's more, acting department head Michael Dues has requested the hiring of additional faculty and an enrollment cap of 500 students in order to reduce the ratio from 100-to-1 down to 45-to-1. According to figures cited at the beginning of the article, Dues' target ratio could be achieved by hiring only three additional faculty or by reducing enrollment by just 125 (not 300) students. According to the article, the department already has plans to "hire three new faculty members this semester." Problem solved...right? It seems that the problem may not be as dire as Dues contends, and that the problems that do exist may not require the extreme measures Dues insists upon.
Zachary Neal
Philosophy senior
