DWC phases out flight program
03-31-2010, 03:47 PM
#21
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,253
Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine
That is true, but why not try to reduce the training costs first?. $165 an hour for a 172 and $125 an hour for a CFI is way above normal rates. There are plenty of FBOs that offer great training from great CFIs at cheaper rates.
04-12-2010, 06:05 PM
#22
Sequester bait
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: UH-60, AS-350, C-550
Posts: 273
A sad day for aviation in New England. To this day I feel that the stuff that really made DWC stand out - Caps & gliders, all the math, aerodynamics & excellent CRM training, has made all my subsequent training easier. TT & SG had a real vision to change the way pilots were taught, and they made it happen.
They will probably sell of the flight center, too, just for the quick buck. Hopefully someone will open a quality flight school in there to honor the memory.
Jesse - DWC '97
They will probably sell of the flight center, too, just for the quick buck. Hopefully someone will open a quality flight school in there to honor the memory.
Jesse - DWC '97
10-12-2016, 03:04 AM
#23
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Position: B737
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine
They are cutting the flight program to make room for new nursing and education courses. 10 years from now all the students will wonder why their school is located next to an airport. The real shame is the impact on the airport. The maintenance companies on the field will lose a lot of business, the FBOs on the field will lose the spillover business (which represents 80% of their customers), and the airport will lose funding as the daily operations tank.
ITT handled it poorly. They told students that had no interest in ending the flight program when they bought the place, but it turns out they planned on doing this from the beginning. In the original plan for the ITT buy out, they agreed that they would not make any major alternations to the day to day activities on campus.
ITT handled it poorly. They told students that had no interest in ending the flight program when they bought the place, but it turns out they planned on doing this from the beginning. In the original plan for the ITT buy out, they agreed that they would not make any major alternations to the day to day activities on campus.
And.................. ITT goes bankrupt, Daniel Webster College is finished. Maybe it will make a nice asbestos filled apartment complex one day.
10-12-2016, 05:13 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,982
Originally Posted by rickair7777
Those are high by FBO standards, but everything in academia is cost-inflated. Just the nature of the beast, usually related to the government-style pay and bennie packages of professors and staff.
10-12-2016, 07:39 AM
#25
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,253
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
Old post, but even then way outdated. Government style pay for most government workers is nothing to write home about. There are a few exceptions, but with plenty of friends in government jobs, it's not some glamorous amount of pay for most of them. Many I know struggle to get above GS7 or so in other fields/branches of government. On the academia side, I don't see many professors taking home huge 6 figure pay, maybe at a few ivy league places for sure, but I'd estimate those are again the exceptions, based on my experience in academia. Lots of universities have found out how to nickle-and-dime the professors, paying them per student per section, at rates that don't reflect the amount of work necessary (like building a syllabus or presentation for 2 students is just as hard as 30, but you'll get paid 1/15th with 2). They have figured out how to put much of the staff on adjunct or part-time status. I'd say the exorbitant cost of college is related to our continual need to always have more and better things. More programs, more buildings, better equipment, new equipment, the latest and greatest, and on and on. This 1950s dorm room isn't adequate anymore, so we need to smash it down and rebuild brand new state of the art dorms. We need a new library with multiple levels. We need to have new equipment to be relevant, and so on. I think a lot of this is out of hand, but in my experience, it's not most professors taking home bank, most of them had retired from their fields and were "giving back", with a few young ones pursuing academia. The only ones I knew driving super nice cars with big mansions were independently wealthy or sitting on a huge retirement.
The government in general can overspend and borrow the money and never have to worry about paying it back (at least for a little while longer...). Academia can overspend and just charge the students more (at least for a little while longer).
You can easily make a case for an ROI (for the grad and society) on a four-year degree that costs $250K...if the graduate was an elite performer going in, and gets a STEM job paying $90K out of the gate, and then does STEM for 40 years. But that calculus doesn't work for a french lit major who's off to Applebees after graduation...
I think the bigger problem is figuring out who needs what level (and expense) of education. Mike Row has some very valid thoughts on that...our french lit major (unless she's getting a Phd and a teaching job) probably should have gone to diesel tech school. She'd be contributing to society and earning a living wage in 18-24 months instead of serving as a conduit to redirect her money, her parent's money, and public money to the academic bureaucracy. Once she gets established in life she can read all the french lit she likes (I have several friends with blue collar careers who are passionate, lifelong learners).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
