Author: Ellen Huet

Student groups are continuing to react to the special fees bill passed by ASSU leaders last week that will put more restrictions on groups’ ability to grow their budgets.

At last night’s Undergraduate Senate meeting — and throughout the week — many group members, especially financial officers, voiced opposition to the legislation and questioned the effectiveness of the new restrictions.

The legislation changes the process by which student groups who receive special fees can adjust their budgets from year to year. Previously, groups were automatically allowed to increase their budgets by up to 10 percent, plus an inflation adjustment, each year before being put on the spring ballot for approval. Now, groups are only allowed an inflationary adjustment, but may petition the student body for budget increases before the student vote.

Student Groups Speak Up

Several student groups, especially those whose funds come entirely from special fees, oppose the new rule.

Minh Dan Vuong ’11, the financial officer for Alternative Spring Break (ASB), wrote a petition that circulated e-mail lists earlier in the week, and that as of Wednesday had 368 signatures.

The petition calls for ASSU to re-evaluate the bill with more student input, claiming that the bill was written and passed without adequate warning to student groups and that the bill “incentivizes student groups to overstate their expenses.”

“While the Senate Appropriations Chair Anton [Zietsman] did send out a notice one week before the bill was voted on, there were no significant efforts to involve students or student groups in the formulation and writing of this legislation,” Vuong wrote in an e-mail to The Daily. He added that since funding and special fees are “highly technical,” groups need additional time to study the bill’s impact.

Other groups echoed frustration with the short notice before the bill’s passage. Makamae Kahawai ’10, the financial officer for the Stanford American Indian Organization (SAIO), explained that most groups didn’t understand the bill and its consequences, which she said was construed as tacit approval by ASSU.

“Quite frankly, comments made by Senator Katz in The Daily regarding the lack of student input is upsetting,” she wrote in an e-mail to The Daily. “People weren’t ‘screaming down their throats’ because no one really knew what was going on.”

Financial officers for student groups, especially those that receive a significant part of their budget from special fees, were also concerned about the bill’s adverse effects on group programming. Although the bill was written in part to “slow down spending” from student groups, many financial officers explained that the 10-percent budget increase helps them adapt to the rising costs of programming.

“Big-name speakers like the ones we have brought in the past, such as Salman Rushdie, Pervez Musharraf and Sarah Silverman all have very large speaking fees that rise above the rate of inflation every year,” wrote Greg Gaskin ’10, financial officer for the Stanford Speakers Bureau, in an e-mail to The Daily. He noted that the Speakers Bureau’s budget demands have also increased recently through their co-sponsorship program.

Vuong noted that ASB traditionally uses the 10-percent increase to cover new costs, such as car insurance for drivers, and to expand their program so that more students can participate each year as the organization grows.

Tommy Tobin ’10, financial officer for Stanford Project on Hunger, was “shocked” at the change, and called the bill’s restrictions “gratuitous.”

“The whole [bill’s] reaction to the economic downturn is stinginess,” he said. “There are other options for funding [besides special fees], but I don’t like the strings attached with alternative choices.”

While some groups stated that they would probably choose not to ask for a budget increase beyond inflation adjustment, those who do need an increased budget can petition the student body for approval. Whether they ask for increases or not, each group’s budget is on the spring ballot for student approval. Historically, nearly all special fees on the ballots are passed each year.

ASSU Senator Anton Zietsman ’12, chair of the Appropriations Committee, hoped the petition process wouldn’t hinder groups’ budgets, but would instead increase the control that students had over student group budgets.

“Hopefully, more group petitions will lead to increased dialogue on the campus about special fees,” he said.

“The way it was expressed in the petition was that the bill would effectively freeze all budgets and completely restrict funding,” Zietsman added. “The purpose of the bill is to sort of engage the student body and make the special fees groups accountable to the funds they’re receiving from the students themselves.”

Some student financial officers, however, felt that the petitions process might stop them from receiving approval they would have otherwise had.

“We will most likely not go out and petition for signatures,” Gaskin said. “Stanford students are very supportive of student groups, but it is still very, very difficult to get enough signatures just to get on the ballot.”

Kahawai and Georgia Andrews ’11, the treasurer for the Stanford Band, both noted that neither of their groups has had problems securing petitions for funding in the past.

In Defense of the Bill

ASSU Senator Alex Katz ’12, who wrote the bill, explained that its primary goals were to slow the rapid increase of special fees, which have risen from $96 to $119 quarterly, and which Katz said “puts a lot of pressure on students.”

If fees keep rising, “then the special fees system isn’t really sustainable long-term,” Katz said.

Winter quarter’s refund rates were the highest in the past seven quarters, with more students requesting refunds and a higher total amount requested.

The commonly heard concern among student groups, however, is that the bill will not address its main goal of slowing the rate of special fees growth. With the 10-percent growth limit gone, if groups feel that they can succeed with petitions and if they fear further increases in refund requests — and thereby a diminished number of students funding their activities — it is possible that they could ask for more money each election.

Katz said that since the process to increase budgets will now be “more difficult,” he hopes that fewer groups will seek increases and the special fees will be reduced. But student groups could see the increased difficulty as a reason to ask for higher budgets, offsetting the benefit.

“There’s a likelihood that special fees will increase significantly with this bill,” Tobin argued. “If groups realize that [the Appropriations Committee] will give them hell and more could come with students, they’re likely to ask for more money to make the process worthwhile.”

“Since the prospect of future funding increases are doubtful, under the new bill, student groups may overstate their expenses rather than taking a cut,” Vuong added, though his characterization of the bill as causing a “cut” is not strictly accurate.

The student body’s history of approving nearly all special fees on the ballot may also add incentive for groups to get on the ballot, despite the extra effort involved.

“I don’t think this bill will do much to reduce the amount of money in the special fees budget,” Andrews wrote in an e-mail to The Daily. “As long as the student body continues to vote yes on all the budgets presented to them, student groups won’t have a lot to fear in terms of losing funding.”

The ASSU insists that the bill is a step in the right direction toward curbing special fees burdens on students and increasing accountability for student group budget increases.

“As is generally the case with VSO leaders, they fail to see the big picture,” Zietsman said. “They see the bill as it affects them and don’t see past that. The bill is the first step, not the final solution.”

Zietsman also emphasized that the Appropriations Committee approves all proposed budgets before they go on the spring ballot, which will serve as a “first check” against groups who might take advantage of special fees funding.

ASSU has also promised to make changes to the refund program and the petitions process to keep things under control, although more specific plans are still “in discussion.”

“Last year was nothing short of a fiasco,” Zietsman said, referring to a mix-up and a consequent extended deadline for the petitions period, which let even more groups get on the ballot. “This year, the deadline will be fixed.”

The bill was re-voted on and approved again at Tuesday night’s Senate meeting, where several student group financial officers expressed their dissatisfaction — which has not abated since then.

“The senators have not resolved the issues in the bill,” Vuong wrote after Tuesday’s meeting. “They have not adequately addressed how the bill will prevent refund rates from rising or how it will prevent exaggerated funding requests.”

@intcopy:<*d(1,3)><z11><zgt;We’ve all been taught to avoid judging a book by its cover, but Spoon’s “Transference” is an album that begs for it. Their newest album comes nipping at the heels of 2007’s hit “Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga,” which dropkicked the band into the limelight with its sassy horn-supported singles and the anticipation was heavily tangible for Spoon’s seventh studio album.

We’ve all been taught to avoid judging a book by its cover, but Spoon’s “Transference” is an album that begs for it. Their newest album comes nipping at the heels of 2007’s hit “Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga,” which dropkicked the band into the limelight with its sassy horn-supported singles and the anticipation was heavily tangible for Spoon’s seventh studio album.

But before the album’s first notes even hit eardrums, the album’s title and cover art speak about what to expect. ‘Transference’–the action of transferring something to another–is simple enough, if a little presumptuous. But its psychological definition hints at something darker: in psychoanalysis, transference occurs when a patient redirects strong emotions such as anger and disgust toward a substitute, often the therapist. And the cover image, a brooding young guy slouching in a chair while a cropped-out woman lurks to the side, uses muted blues and oranges to convey a sense of adolescent ennui.

From the first track, the Austin-based quartet’s sound falls in line with the hinted tone of the title. It’s a little ambiguous and unclear–perhaps not directed where it should be. The opening track, “Before Destruction,” doesn’t make a big statement, but instead, vocalist Britt Daniel’s words come out stifled, as if sung into a cardboard box instead of over a vast crowd. The band’s signature low-fi garage sound is highlighted, almost overdone, almost to remind fans that despite the commercial and popular success of “Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga,” that Spoon haven’t reneged on their solidly built minimal style.

Without a noticeable or marketable single, “Transference” makes a well-balanced album, with variations, but no sore thumbs. On the other hand, it wanders into the danger zone of turning into too much of the same. A few twists keep the front end of the record from dragging: “Is Love Forever?” almost answers its own tongue-in-cheek question, clocking in at 2:07 as the shortest track on the album; the easy groove of “The Mystery Zone” puts it closest to the album’s big song, but it’s too static and too long to rival the hits from other albums; “I Saw the Light” pushes two minutes of slow languor and then abruptly shifts gears to a sharp instrumental riff that builds part by part into a driving force.

By the middle mark, though, “Transference” starts having difficulties getting its message across. With the piano ballad “Goodnight Laura,” Spoon wipes away all noticeable effects in favor of a more “authentic” sound. The attempt is admirable, but the execution falls short: instead of gaining the emotional power that most stripped-down performances offer, it instead sounds like something you might overhear in a dorm piano room–a little jarring, a little off-rhythm and most definitely missing something. Following this is “Out Go the Lights,” whose lyrics sulk through the song like the man on the cover art, leaving most of the album’s momentum to straggle behind.

The last two tracks do their best to pick up the speed: “Got Nuffin,” released in 2009 on an EP, has that Spoon-style steady bass line and Britt Daniel crooning, “I got nothing to lose/except darkness and shadows.” The final savior comes in the surprise that is “Nobody Gets Me But You,” which hits the palate with a bumping bass line so unlike the 1-2-3-4 of most Spoon songs that you can’t help but bob your head a little.

It’s not groundbreaking, but Spoon doesn’t seem to mind. Right after “Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga,” the band released two other EPs that catered even less than Transference does to its new mainstream audience. If any new fans of Spoon were expecting a repeat of “You Got Yr. Cherry Bomb,” don’t bother looking–it’s not here. But something more thoughtful lurks behind the somewhat muted tracks: Spoon’s just doing what they’ve always done.

A look at year-end numbers for Stanford real estate sales shows a more than 50 percent decrease in single-family residence sales from academic years 2005-2006 to 2008-2009 — down to 23 from 48 — while sale prices stayed within the same ranges as previous years.

Faculty Staff Housing (FSH), a division of the Office of the Provost, assists eligible faculty and executive-level staff in acquiring permanent housing in the area, including on University-owned land. Most faculty and staff in on-campus housing are found in neighborhoods surrounding the central campus, such as Santa Ynez Street, Mayfield Avenue or condominiums on Peter Coutts Circle or Pearce Mitchell Place.

In the 2005-2006 academic year, FSH reported 48 sales of single-family residences on campus, including 11 condominiums. By academic year 2008-2009, the total on-campus sales number dropped to 23. As of Jan. 6, 2010, only 10 sales have been made in the current academic year.

Single-family homes during the 2008-2009 academic year sold for between $1.3 and $2.5 million, whereas condominiums ranged from $350,000 to $840,000.

In the wake of the housing bubble bust, housing markets in surrounding cities have become noticeably less active, with sales numbers dropping along with home prices, said locals involved in real estate.

Jan Thomson, Stanford’s FSH manager, explained that the on-campus housing market lags behind the surrounding housing markets, but generally follows outside trends in terms of mortgage rates and other measurements.

Thomson emphasized, however, that the small campus housing market is likely affected by the limited number of residences available.

“The [sale] numbers reflect the supply on campus,” she said. “It’s largely dependent on what’s available, as compared to off-campus housing, which has much more available.”

Thomson noted that declining sales numbers can be partly attributed to the University’s less aggressive recruitment of new faculty because of recent financial restraints. Some rental housing has also been unoccupied, but Thomson hopes to see them occupied in the near future.

Real estate agents who handle sales on campus agreed that availability plays a large role in determining yearly sales numbers.

“Clients will look both on and off campus when trying to buy a home in the area,” said real estate agent Monica Corman of Alain Pinel Realtors. “They often end up off campus, simply because there’s nothing available on campus.”

She noted that faculty and staff who want to reside on campus find “very little inventory” available to them.

The general market also plays a role; Corman noted that “volume and prices are down everywhere.”

Coldwell Banker agent Carole Feldstein, who has sold on campus for more than 20 years, said she “has not noticed any trends” specific to the Stanford housing market.

“Stanford properties follow market tendencies,” she said.

She said that differences between comparable residences on and off campus depend on available inventory.

“It would be misleading to generalize about on-campus housing trends,” Feldstein said.

Looking forward, 39 new faculty- and staff-only residences are in development in the Olmstead Terrace neighborhood near Stanford Avenue, and Olmstead Road sales are expected to begin this spring.

“The newest housing developments will be very interesting,” Corman said. “The developments are nicer and newer, but higher density. I think it will bring a new energy to campus.”

Two years after entering MBA programs, business school graduates are now finding that the job market they left holds little similarity to the one they’re returning to.

A declining economy and changing employment opportunities have more and more graduates of even the most prestigious business schools waiting longer for job offers after graduation. Stanford’s Graduate School of Business (GSB) is consistently ranked in the top five business schools in the nation, but employment statistics for its graduates have shown a sharp downturn in the past year for the Class of 2009.

For the Classes of 2005 to 2008, the percentage of GSB graduates seeking employment who accepted offers by three months after graduation has stayed steady around 94 percent, with 98 percent of the Class of 2008 receiving job offers and 93 percent accepting offers by three months post-graduation.

The Class of 2009, however, had less optimistic prospects. At graduation, 74 percent of graduates seeking employment had job offers and only 69 percent had accepted positions. Three months later, still only 90 percent had offers and only 85 percent had accepted employment.

The near-eight percent drop in three-month post-graduation employment rate from 2008 to 2009 reflects a drastic change in an economy that may not rebound for several years. The change is similarly evident at the prestigious UC-Berkeley Haas School of Business — three months after graduation, just 85.4 percent of the Class of 2009 had received job offers, when the number had held steady at 95 percent since 2006.

“Obviously, the fundamental hiring environment deteriorated throughout the year in response to the uncertainty around the economic crisis,” wrote Pulin Sanghvi MBA ‘97, assistant dean and director at the GSB’s Career Management Center, in an e-mail to The Daily. “A greater proportion of MBA recruiters moved their recruiting processes toward ‘just in time’ hiring, which left fewer opportunities that could be secured by students months in advance.”

Sanghvi also said that, in the hopes that the economy would improve and in order to avoid companies’ hiring freezes, many graduating students postponed their job searches from fall to spring. The crisis, however, only heightened in the spring; as a result, many 2009 graduates were forced to push their job searches until much later in the year, often undertaking short-term or entrepreneurial projects in the meantime.

Current GSB students agree that the economic crisis played a role in the drop in employment rate. But they also suggest that students, in this uncertain economic climate, are tending to wait longer for a “dream job” than accepting whatever comes along.

First-year GSB student John Krzywicki explained that the economic downturn resulted in fewer students with multiple offers and fewer students with desired offers, leaving more students holding out longer for a specific job.

“People come to the GSB with high expectations,” Krzywicki said. “They think, ‘Why should I settle?’ and they extend their search a bit longer.”

Krzywicki predicted that despite the drop in MBA graduate employment rates, prospective students would still seek the degree. “Most people think that bigger trends [in employment] wouldn’t apply to them,” he said. “More people are considering startups and taking less traditional approaches to careers.”

Second-year GSB student Ann Wessing echoed the same opinion about students willing to postpone immediate employment for a more desirable position. “This is a tough economy, but I know people who had job offers that didn’t take them,” she said.

Wessing also explained that although an MBA now carries less of an employment guarantee, she doesn’t expect that to deter most prospective students. “People at the GSB are here for a lot of reasons — for jobs, yes, but also for academic resources and new experiences,” she said.

“We’re all assuming that this issue will be resolved by the time we graduate,” she said, adding that she herself has had job offers but hasn’t yet accepted any.

Sanghvi believes the GSB graduates’ problems will be present for at least a few more years, noting that many economists expect the national unemployment rate to remain high for several years to come. However, he noted that the Class of 2010 is adapting by beginning the job search sooner and recognizing the need for greater flexibility in industry and function.

Indeed, the GSB’s employment reports reflected a need for more flexibility in job areas for graduates, with 73 percent of the Class of 2009 reporting a change in industry from their pre-MBA positions. In past years, the corresponding statistic was usually around 55 to 65 percent, peaking in 2008 with 81 percent.

Sanghvi emphasized that while the future may seem more bleak, future graduates of the GSB can rest assured that, at the very least, the two recent major industry busts — the dot-com crash and the recent crisis — have already passed, and the economy has room to improve.

“The Class of 2010 will be graduating into a more difficult job market initially, which will require greater flexibility on their part,” Sanghvi said. “However, the two economic dislocations that my class had in front of us will be behind them.”