Join 3,572 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


“free as air and water”
April 23, 2013 4:09 PM   Subscribe

For the first time in over a century, Cooper Union announces that it will begin to charge undergraduate students tuition.
posted by Whitall Tatum (71 comments total) 6 users marked this as a favorite

 
I am always confused when capitalism is considered "conservative".

What a shame.
posted by Freen at 4:14 PM on April 23, 2013


boo. dumb investment speculation burns talented youth.
posted by percor at 4:14 PM on April 23, 2013


I'm impressed that they kept it up this long. Also, they own the land under the Chrysler building? Geez.
posted by GuyZero at 4:17 PM on April 23, 2013


Also, Previously
posted by FreezBoy at 4:26 PM on April 23, 2013


According to Cooper Union’s president, Jamshed Bharucha, it currently operates at a $12 million annual deficit. That number reflects several factors: expenses that have risen faster than revenues, a growing administration, disappointing fund-raising drives and most significantly $10 million a year in payments on a $175 million loan the school took out a few years ago, in part so that it could invest money in the stock market.

Wait -- you can get a massive loan just to play the ponies "invest money in the stock market"?

What the shit.
posted by Sys Rq at 4:35 PM on April 23, 2013 [21 favorites]


What the shit.

If you have the secured assets to do so, you can get a loan for burning the money just after it arrives (currency law aside).
posted by jaduncan at 4:38 PM on April 23, 2013


important post from previous thread:

As a direct consequence, neither you nor Cooper can get much for your savings. As a direct consequence, they can no longer afford to educate students off their interest income.

Nope. What Cooper did was borrow money to pay for new buildings and also also to invest in its own endowment:

Cooper Union spent $166 million on a new academic building at 41 Cooper Square, replacing two outmoded buildings. To help pay for that and other projects, and to retire old bonds, it borrowed $175 million in 2006.

The college also invested $32 million of that borrowing in its endowment, calculating that the endowment investments would earn a higher rate of return than the interest Cooper was paying on the loan. That turned out to be a bad bet when the recession hit.

I think what's going on is roughly equivalent to the what private equity does, the board leveraged the old assets of the company i.e. borrowed money against the endowment, declared crisis and is now prepared to sell the company to new money i.e. new programs to bring in new donations.

It's not a structural crisis in their endowment but creating a crisis to push CU in a new direction.
posted by ennui.bz at 10:14 AM on December 7, 2012 [16 favorites +] [!]
posted by percor at 4:38 PM on April 23, 2013 [5 favorites]


Yeah. More on that loan.
posted by bq at 4:38 PM on April 23, 2013


If Rice is any guide (my alma mater started charging tuition in 1965), they have about 20 years before serious tuition increases start. That's long enough for the institutional culture and that of the alumni to shift, is my guess. Good luck to the folks who want keep tuition down. Over time, they'll need it.
posted by immlass at 4:41 PM on April 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


Yep. Going from $0 to $1 of tuition appears to be infinitely harder than going from $1 to $40,000.
posted by 2bucksplus at 4:43 PM on April 23, 2013 [3 favorites]


.
posted by griphus at 4:46 PM on April 23, 2013


I mean, everyone already had to pay room and board. This isn't from $0 to $19250.
It's from $20000 to $39250.

Which, um, is still freakishly expensive.
posted by tooloudinhere at 4:51 PM on April 23, 2013 [2 favorites]


I mean, everyone already had to pay room and board. This isn't from $0 to $19250.

Do the students from NYC (or who don't want to live in campus housing) have to dorm as well? I know some colleges have a "frosh have to live on campus" rule.
posted by griphus at 4:52 PM on April 23, 2013


Wait -- you can get a massive loan just to play the ponies "invest money in the stock market"?

Anyone can do this; Margin buying.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 4:53 PM on April 23, 2013


calculating that the endowment investments would earn a higher rate of return than the interest Cooper was paying on the loan

Well, to be fair, this is not a terrible idea, merely a risky one. US central bank rates are like 0.25% so let's be conservative and say Cooper got a loan at 1%. Even 2%. It's really not that hard to beat 2%. Even dividend yields are more than that - Apple is currently yielding 2.36%. Microsoft 3.22% And these are not really high-yield stocks. Getting 1 or 2 percentage points of yield on arbitrage seems pretty straightforward really. Unfortunately there are no sure bets in life.
posted by GuyZero at 4:54 PM on April 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


GuyZero: it sort did turn out to be a terrible idea, didn't it?

The thing about gambling (playing the pony's/stock market) is that one has to be prepared to lose what they are gambling, otherwise they really can't afford to gamble. This is why I'll happily jump into a 20$ game of poker with some friends, but will never drop 200$ at a table in Vegas - I can't afford those sorts of losses.

sigh.
posted by el io at 5:03 PM on April 23, 2013 [4 favorites]


Also: I'm curious how much they paid the consultants (whose advice they apparently didn't take).
posted by el io at 5:04 PM on April 23, 2013


griphus: looks like residence is optional

jaduncan: Are there really currency laws that would stop you just burning money?
posted by jacalata at 5:07 PM on April 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


Anyone can do this; Margin buying.

[BTW, I'm not saying this is a good idea. In today's market, it's kind of risky].
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:07 PM on April 23, 2013


GuyZero: it sort did turn out to be a terrible idea, didn't it?

A terrible idea has no chance of success. A risky idea has some chance of success and some chance of failure.

There are plenty of mutual funds that had positive rates of return over this period. There are probably a lot more that had negative rates of return. But certainly it was possible to make money on margin.

Most of the loan seems to have gone to capital projects anyway, so this seems like a pretty small side bet. Given they already had a pretty huge endowment it's entirely possible that their endowment might have lost a lot of value regardless of them taking this additional loan. Pulling your entire operating budget from an endowment is a risky move all by itself.
posted by GuyZero at 5:12 PM on April 23, 2013 [4 favorites]


A rising tide sinks all scuttled ships, apparently.
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 5:24 PM on April 23, 2013


Not at all. A terrible idea is one with a completely inapplicable risk/reward profile

An institute of higher learning with 150 years of history behind it should not be getting into any risky investments at all, and particularly not risky investments that would seriously affect their ability to execute their core mission - to provide affordable education to working-class people.

This was a terrible idea, and it would have been a terrible idea even if they'd made money out of it - they should simply not be in this business of speculating on stocks.

"the school took out a few years ago, in part so that it could invest money in the stock market."

"The school" did, eh? Actually, a tiny number of people made this bad decision. Why aren't these bozos' names front and center?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 5:27 PM on April 23, 2013 [2 favorites]


> Cooper Union spent $166 million on a new academic building at 41 Cooper Square,

Make that "a grossly overarchitected building" - link.

"Similar to its mission of providing free high quality education, the building itself is didactic with its selective transparencies and sustainable façade."

A shame they had to get rid of their mission, but at least they have their nice didactic building!
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 5:30 PM on April 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


An institute of higher learning with 150 years of history behind it should not be getting into any risky investments at all, and particularly not risky investments that would seriously affect their ability to execute their core mission - to provide affordable education to working-class people.

This was a terrible idea, and it would have been a terrible idea even if they'd made money out of it - they should simply not be in this business of speculating on stocks.


Every American university invests its endowment in equities. Harvard is practically a hedge fund with a small university attached to it.
posted by mr_roboto at 5:31 PM on April 23, 2013 [6 favorites]


An institute of higher learning with 150 years of history behind it should not be getting into any risky investments at all, and particularly not risky investments that would seriously affect their ability to execute their core mission - to provide affordable education to working-class people.

This was a terrible idea, and it would have been a terrible idea even if they'd made money out of it - they should simply not be in this business of speculating on stocks.


No this is pretty much categorically false.

The infinitely long-lived tenor of an endowment means it can take more risk if the assets and the liabilities are matched properly. Cooper Unions problem is that it ate too much of its seed corn on fancy buildings and then doubled down by borrowing money to make up the difference. The fact that they invested a quarter of their funds in equities is a side show. Indeed if they had the worst timing in the world, but didn't have liquidity constraints and were able to stay invested (and assuming they earned the market return) they'd actually now be up on the poorly designed investment.
posted by JPD at 5:34 PM on April 23, 2013 [8 favorites]


> Every American university invests its endowment in equities.

And borrows money to do so? I don't think so...
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 5:36 PM on April 23, 2013


Stanford's endowment is about $17 billion.

I'm pretty sure that's not all in bonds and t-bills, especially since they got a 3.2% return last year. I don't think anyone would consider Stanford irresponsible with their money.

they should simply not be in this business of speculating on stocks.

I know that investment bankers get a bad rap, but there's not much difference between "investing" and "speculating". When you have that much money it has to go somewhere. And many stocks are hardly speculative at all - AT&T and GE and the other big Dow blue-chips.

Building a $166M building is a terrible idea, IMO. An extra $32M in the endowment isn't a big deal beside that.
posted by GuyZero at 5:36 PM on April 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


Do the students from NYC (or who don't want to live in campus housing) have to dorm as well? I know some colleges have a "frosh have to live on campus" rule.

From a sample size n>15, I know that many, many people don't live on campus after their first or second year, and live out in the other boroughs together, effectively halving that room & board rate.
posted by suedehead at 5:37 PM on April 23, 2013


And borrows money to do so? I don't think so...

Its not as uncommon as you think, or often they've outsourced the investment to a firm that uses lots of leverage. In reality its irrelevant if the leverage is held at the endowment level or at the manager level.
posted by JPD at 5:38 PM on April 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


Look, I certainly do understand that an endowment needs to be invested somewhere, and perhaps these specific investments might have made sense in the context of a different and much more diverse portfolio, but to leverage oneself in order to purchase more higher-risk assets while simultaneously engaging in a capital intensive and risky activity like building new quarters is a terrible idea, and the fact is that it worked out terribly badly for them - and for their students - should be no surprise.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 5:42 PM on April 23, 2013


yeah but that's not what you said. I think we all agree that the endowment was massively mismanaged through a combination of overspending on new buildings and a poorly designed strategy to lever up the existing real estate.
posted by JPD at 5:46 PM on April 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


> often they've outsourced the investment to a firm that uses lots of leverage.

A large endowment should primarily be interested in capital preservation, with only a minority portion of their holdings in riskier vehicles. Leveraged investments are generally exactly the opposite, with higher risk/reward profiles as the leverage factor increases.

While I don't know the details of Harvard's endowment, I can bet you that only a fairly small portion is in very volatile securities. I'd also point out that since they have cash to burn (they could stop taking in tuition and run the school for 20 years on their $35 billion pile), they can afford to take some risks.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 5:48 PM on April 23, 2013


A large endowment should primarily be interested in capital preservation

no. this is not true. Its just not correct. MeMail me if you want to continue the conversation. This is getting derail-y.
posted by JPD at 5:50 PM on April 23, 2013


Regardless, we can certainly agree - someone fucked up. Someone assumed a great deal of pointless risk, and mismanaged it.

But who? Jamshed Bharucha? The trustees? The article is singularly quiet on this issue.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 5:51 PM on April 23, 2013


Last thing I'll say here on this topc. Its not mathematically possible to manage an endowment that 1) pays out a portion of its value to fund ongoing programs 2) Maintains real purchasing power - by not taking risk. The math doesn't work.
posted by JPD at 5:52 PM on April 23, 2013


Bharucha was brought in to clean up the mess his predecessor made.
posted by plastic_animals at 5:53 PM on April 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


A large endowment should primarily be interested in capital preservation....

Even if this is the case, it's worth pointing out that the Fed has kept interest rates at about zero percent for several years now and no real end in sight. Hard to make a safe return without risk in this environment.
posted by IndigoJones at 5:53 PM on April 23, 2013


Even if this is the case, it's worth pointing out that the Fed has kept interest rates at about zero percent for several years now and no real end in sight. Hard to make a safe return without risk in this environment.

Ironically this should have made Cooper Unions strategy more tenable.
posted by JPD at 5:55 PM on April 23, 2013


We keep getting threads about how academic staff are working without benefits for minimum wage with no chance of tenure etc.
Yet even a college like this is seeing massive cost inflation.
Is it all about the cost of building grand buildings? If so, why are they still building them?
Why is education expense growing so fast, while the staffing costs are apparently dropping like a stone?
Genuine questions. It doesn't add up for me as an outsider.
posted by bystander at 6:58 PM on April 23, 2013 [2 favorites]


cf item #2 a growing administration
Administrators know the only real purpose of anything is to grow the administration, and they can explain why convincingly and at length.

What rhymes with 'administration' and begins with 'defene'?
posted by hexatron at 7:06 PM on April 23, 2013 [5 favorites]


I hope that all of the students secede and found their own college. Without the endowment, the students would have to pay faculty directly, but they could set up as student-run cooperative university and collectively manage much of their administrative overhead (the student protests against tuition were reasonably well-organized, as I recall); and that would be better than giving their money to the administration that would make this sort of a decision. If all or a significant portion of current students resign and they run a savvy campaign to poach prospective new students for next year, that seems to me it would be a pretty effective protest: not only making a strong point, but hopefully making the economic costs of the Cooper Union administration straying from the institution's ideals worse that the economic benefits to them. Supportive faculty could moonlight on the side for the cooperative student-run university, but not resign their faculty positions at the original Cooper Union, so as to maintain a voice in Cooper Union's institutional governance to attempt to reverse the tuition decision.
posted by eviemath at 9:13 PM on April 23, 2013


That's one building that cost $166 million? Is is made from gold bricks?
posted by zardoz at 10:18 PM on April 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


Free university takes loans for future, charges tuition, renders degrees less valuable.
posted by wcfields at 10:20 PM on April 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


Its not mathematically possible to manage an endowment that 1) pays out a portion of its value to fund ongoing programs 2) Maintains real purchasing power - by not taking risk. The math doesn't work.

You do it the old-fashioned way by passing the risk off to the taxpayer. Don't the people at Cooper Union know anyone on Wall Street?
posted by three blind mice at 1:22 AM on April 24, 2013


“One of my professors came out and said, ‘Drape the whole school in black.’ ”

Cooper Black.
posted by Kabanos at 7:36 AM on April 24, 2013 [1 favorite]


Solution: Sell all college property and move the school to Staten Island or the Bronx. A lot of the identity of the School is caught up in the history of the location (Lincoln spoke there, etc), which is dragging down the dream of a free school in New York City. History, however, is bunk.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 7:46 AM on April 24, 2013


I suspect a lot of the NYC school will be wishing they did that if interest rates ever go back up.

NYU is basically a real estate investment fund.
posted by JPD at 7:48 AM on April 24, 2013


I'm actually trying to imagine an East Village that isn't just punk-rock Disneyland existing almost solely to cater to NYU students, but I can't.
posted by griphus at 7:51 AM on April 24, 2013


NYU is basically a real estate investment fund.

and Harvard is a private equity firm which dabbles in R&D and has a historical interest in undergraduate religious education and, ironically (if that is the right word), also got caught out playing the same sorts of games with it's money... if I remember correctly, they were (roughly) leveraging their operating accounts via their endowment.

And of course it's ironic (again) that the ordinary bondholders union pension fund taxpayers students are ultimately going pay for the fuck up.
posted by ennui.bz at 8:10 AM on April 24, 2013


I think you miss the point.

NYU's endowment is essentially invested in one asset - downtown NYC real estate. The school really saw its economic situation improve (which allowed them to invest in their programs to their credit) when that real estate went up in value. Before then they were not seen as being a top tier school - at least for undergrad, can't speak to grad school.

Harvard's endowment is broadly diversified and they schools ability to maintain its reputation is not inextricably linked with one particular asset.

The big "Scandals" surrounding Harvard's endowment was that they 1) were paying their managers similarly to what they could earn in the private sector 2) They entered into a big fixed for floating swap at a time when rates where at then historic lows. Rates went lower so they decided to close out the swap at a large loss. Its not really comparable to what Cooper Union did at all.
posted by JPD at 8:21 AM on April 24, 2013


I'm amazed that Cooper Union was able to stay tuition-free so long.

Some notes about the economics here: charities that have endowments are required by federal law to spend 5% of their endowment per year. In this particular economic environment, it is impossible for a school to "be interested primarily in capital preservation" without investing in something other than bonds.

A school will not only want to maintain its capital in its endowment. It will want to maintain its purchasing power, which means that the endowment not only has to return 5% per year (the amount that is required to be paid out), but it has to return 5% plus inflation. Otherwise the endowment is losing purchasing power over time. (As an aside, this was what made Harvard's budgeting really weird, in that they've got money tied up in illiquid investments, so when their endowment lost a lot of money, they had to unbalance their portfolio a bit in order to get their operating budget. A relatively small loss in Harvard's budget impacts their annual operating budget by millions of dollars.)

In that context, investing in the stock market was entirely the appropriate thing for Cooper Union to do with the money from that loan (which was likely intended to be used for paying the upkeep on their new building). They just got bit by having bad timing.

(I serve on the board of a college. I wish our endowment was as large as Cooper Union's, not to mention Harvard.)
posted by grae at 8:22 AM on April 24, 2013 [2 favorites]


Why not halve the number of students and have it be tuition-free? I'm sure the overhead costs of faculty, staff, building management, etc, costs a lot, but if the choice is between (unfortunately) firing teachers and killing the central mission of a school forever, then I'd choose the former.
posted by suedehead at 10:30 AM on April 24, 2013


Some notes about the economics here: charities that have endowments are required by federal law to spend 5% of their endowment per year.


This is a requirement for private foundations. It does not apply to university endowments.

If your board has been acting as if this requirement applies to your college, you are either in a relatively unusual legal situation or you have received bad legal advice.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:42 AM on April 24, 2013


Why not halve the number of students and have it be tuition-free?

Per the announcement, they expect many students will continue to receive a full tuition scholarship. Like many rich schools (Harvard, Stanford) they only expect people with relatively wealthy families to pay any tuition. The only problem is that because they've never needed to ask before they have no clue about which students actually need financial aid and which do not.
posted by GuyZero at 10:45 AM on April 24, 2013


Per the announcement, they expect many students will continue to receive a full tuition scholarship.

What? I'm not reading this anywhere. If that were the case, nobody would be worried. Rather:

But under the plan adopted by the trustees, Cooper Union will reduce those scholarships for some students by as much as 50 percent. (from the article)
posted by suedehead at 10:51 AM on April 24, 2013


"But beginning in fall 2014, it will charge students based on what the college described as a steeply sliding scale, with those deemed able paying around $20,000, and many others, including those 'with the greatest needs,' paying nothing. The change would not apply to undergraduates enrolled as of this fall."
posted by griphus at 10:52 AM on April 24, 2013


From the NY Times article:

"But beginning in fall 2014, it will charge students based on what the college described as a steeply sliding scale, with those deemed able paying around $20,000, and many others, including those “with the greatest needs,” paying nothing. "

Many others paying nothing.
posted by GuyZero at 10:52 AM on April 24, 2013


Ah, thanks for the correction.

I still think this is a terrible, terrible, terrible idea. As someone who didn't go to Cooper Union, but judging by the many people I've encountered and befriended from the instution, I consider CU a better school than many other Ivies, including Harvard / Columbia / Yale, etc. A big part of this, IMO, is the free tuition, and the way in which the faculty and students alike are forged around the central identity of "open and free to all" into a strong community.
posted by suedehead at 11:07 AM on April 24, 2013 [1 favorite]


A big part of this, IMO, is the free tuition

My personal opinion is that 90% of what defines a university's undergrad program is how it handles admissions. I really don't know what Cooper does but I'll assume it does things differently than Harvard/Yale/Columbia. I suspect that as long as they don't change that process that charging tuition will not make a huge change in culture although certainly it does take out a big chunk out of one of their core principles.
posted by GuyZero at 11:19 AM on April 24, 2013


mr_roboto, thank you for correcting me.

Congress was considering legislation making that a requirement for universities a couple of years ago, and I mixed things up in my head. I will note that both Harvard and the college I serve on the board of both spend around 5% of the endowment annually, and based on the reading I've done on the topic, it's pretty standard that colleges spend 4.5-5.5%.

That said, there are still requirements on how much you have to spend if you want to be considered an "operating foundation" which is exempt from the 5% rule. You're not legally allowed to just sit on an endowment forever, as far as I understand it; if you're not spending enough money you cease to qualify as an operating foundation, and the 5% rule applies.
posted by grae at 8:40 AM on April 25, 2013


My personal opinion is that 90% of what defines a university's undergrad program is how it handles admissions.

Cooper (for architecture and art) has a very interesting hometest.

But Cooper is very different. As an outsider looking in, it feels very different. The relationship between faculty and student is really wondrous. I don't know how to describe my impressions of it, save that, it seems to exist outside of the the usual college institution churn of admissions, tuition, housing, classes, student advisors, professors, etc.

My observation aligns with this person's:

"I went to Columbia University, a college filled with perfectly bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, well-prepared and utterly naive undergraduates, most of whom have moved from elite high school to elite university and puffed up their resume with competitive internships. A few of them are brilliant, but most of them are simply average. A professor of literature once complained to me of their uniformity, lamenting how little intellectual passion they have; they do the work, they earn the A, but that pursuit of knowledge in pursuit of advancement and freedom that once infused American universities with life just isn't there.

Cooper Union, because it was free, was anything but dead. It was a true meritocracy, and it was a place for artists like Piotr, who was not simply a hipster pursuing a pointless degree free of charge, but who, without the burden of loan repayments, can leverage that education to start his own business and contribute himself to the world. That leverage is, after all, the point of higher education. When Cooper becomes more like Columbia, an exclusive brand sold to those who are expensively prepped for admission and able or willing to pay, it will be yet another rung in the ladder lost to those still on the lower rungs. It will be another once free space in the city taken over by wealth, another desirable amenity in the luxury conclave of New York."


And finally, by John Hejduk, former Dean:

To be within the Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art is to be within a spiritual place, an authentic place. An institution that is lovingly held in trust. A place that believes one of society's prime social responsibilities is towards learning and education in the deepest sense. It's a place that contributes to thought, free thought, thought that is exploratory thought, founded by Peter Cooper, a man with a vision that still sustains and maintains the spirit of place and cares for enlightenment.

I don't think there are many things more important than being a student. That, to me, is the deepest social contract, to understand the idea that individual creativity within a willing community is a profound social act. The privilege of being teachers and students within this remarkable place- to be teachers in a place of spirit, to be teachers of spirit, and to be spirited students.

All one can do is celebrate one's discipline.


Again, as a non-Cooper student who went to a privileged Ivy, all I can do is mourn this other institution that I have been so lucky to have come into secondary contact with, the kind of institution that creates people who I think will really change the world, who are passionate and opinionated and idealistic and critical and thoughtful. Part of this is because they came from a place of learning that seemed to be more than just a degree-printing organization, because it held students who were not seeking their own legitimation by obtaining the social capital of a degree, because the admissions process did not consist of a SAT and a few essays and an interview, because most of the faculty who teach at Cooper are proud to do so for more than monetary or career-related reasons.

I have high hopes for my many friends from Cooper, more so than I do from friends or acquaintances from my alma mater, or from other elite institutions. I'm in my mid-late 20s, and I know that many of those other acquaintances will continue to stay in their high-paying finance / consulting jobs, or will walk the usual paths of law/med/business school, and will ultimately turn into high net-worth individuals with property and stability. Good for them. But those friends from Cooper Union are, to borrow a term from the start-up world, disruptive, creative, transformative, full of drive that exists beyond a desire for career advancement. That's not a coincidence.

.
posted by suedehead at 12:54 PM on April 26, 2013 [2 favorites]


Felix Simon: The tragedy of the cooper union
posted by The Whelk at 10:04 AM on April 30, 2013 [2 favorites]


Yep:

"a gratuitously glamorous and expensive New Academic Building, built at vast expense, with the aid of a $175 million mortgage which Cooper Union has no ability to repay."

$32M invested in stocks was not the issue. Rudderless leadership taking out a massive loan to build a new building is the issue. What a sad story. The trustees just slowly pissing away the trust's assets because they're too lazy to stick to a budget.
posted by GuyZero at 10:17 AM on April 30, 2013


55 Students occupy the president's office
posted by The Whelk at 9:36 AM on May 8, 2013 [1 favorite]


Looks like there's gonna be a big protest at 6pm, there's allready a live steam, several journos I know have begun thier responses, maybe new FPP soon?
posted by The Whelk at 1:17 PM on May 8, 2013


Ain't no protect gonna unbuild that building.
posted by GuyZero at 1:50 PM on May 8, 2013


We need to find Cooper's secret time machine!
posted by The Whelk at 4:49 PM on May 8, 2013


Ain't no protect gonna unbuild that building.

Sell it.
posted by jaduncan at 4:59 PM on May 8, 2013


er, protest. can't type. Also, selling off the building would simply crystalize the loss. The trustees have burned the money already. It's not like they can sell the building at anything but a huge loss.
posted by GuyZero at 10:10 PM on May 8, 2013


Report from the protest
posted by The Whelk at 9:37 AM on May 9, 2013


Are Cooper's Fiances fixable?

The twitter feed of the occupying students
posted by The Whelk at 5:05 PM on May 11, 2013


« Older Youtube user Thepeterson puts together collections...   |   Cat dressed as a shark chases ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments