Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They reportedly have a $1.2 billion endowment, so presumably they can afford it. And now new management is in charge, so why not just move on? Unless they need the money. I can't believe any rational administrator at that school wants the facts of the case to be hashed out in public again.

Oberlin is not in great financial shape, long term. They were already running deficits. Like many expensive smaller colleges, they’ve already had to offer significant merit aid to attract qualified students, so raising tuition is not an option. In recent years, they’ve dipped into their endowment for operating expenses, and cut the number of students in the Conservatory, and made salary cuts for employees. $36 million (+ legal fees, so probably more like $40 million) is real money for a school the size of Oberlin.

https://oberlinreview.org/25701/opinions/colleges-financial-struggles-exacerbated-by-lack-of-alumni-donations/

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/04/18/amid-budget-deficits-and-unfavorable-demographics-oberlin-pushes-do-more-less

https://oberlinreview.org/21937/news/college-deficit-5-million-less-than-expected-trustees-roll-back-one-time-salary-cuts/

Prior to the COVID-19 crisis, the College was already facing significant structural deficits. To address these systemic issues, the College developed One Oberlin recommendations in 2018 to balance the budget. One Oberlin implementation began last year with the expansion of Winter Term, the development of new postgraduate certificate programs in the Conservatory, new concentrations in the College, and the decision to outsource custodial and dining services.

This year’s increased financial deficits have only exacerbated the need for change already espoused by administrators.
“Before the pandemic, Oberlin planned $6.8 million in reductions associated with the One Oberlin roadmap and these reductions were projected to produce a balanced budget,” Vazquez-Skillings wrote. “Next year’s budget assumes that we will still achieve those necessary budget reductions.”

Anonymous wrote:Team insurers. (Never thought I'd say that.)

Anonymous wrote:They reportedly have a $1.2 billion endowment, so presumably they can afford it. And now new management is in charge, so why not just move on? Unless they need the money. I can't believe any rational administrator at that school wants the facts of the case to be hashed out in public again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would guess the vast majority of posts on this chain are from a small number of posters that have it in for Oberlin and an agenda to promote that post multiple times.

Of course they sued for coverage.

I have a rising college freshman attending a different LAC and a number of friends with kids there. It would have been a good likely for my student except for location. Strong education and a solid endowment and merit aid available.

I just do not hear about this suit except for on DCUM.

Oh, please. The bolded is just ridiculous and what someone says when they clearly want to dismiss and discredit. I'm sorry it distresses you so to be reminded by a number of different people just how moronic the administration at Oberlin is (and probably much of its student body). Perhaps if they didn't do moronic things, no one would be calling them out.
DP

^ I thought this matter was dead and buried a long time ago. I didn't expect to read they are suing their insurers so naturally the whole sad affair will be dredged up again. Presumably the insurers' defense is that the policies didn't cover intentional torts. And now, rather than just cut their losses and move on, they're going to engage in yet more costly litigation.

Anonymous wrote:They reportedly have a $1.2 billion endowment, so presumably they can afford it. And now new management is in charge, so why not just move on? Unless they need the money. I can't believe any rational administrator at that school wants the facts of the case to be hashed out in public again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This incident happened nearly a decade ago. Of course, all involved students are long gone, but so too is the entire administration. The president over the past five years is exceedingly impressive, the student dean that was the one who was the focus of the lawsuit is gone, and so too are other officials such as the gc.

On expenses, the tuition is basically the same as every other prestigious private college, but meets full financial need and has generous merit . It hss a 1.2 billion endowment. I assume that, in a pretty good quarter, the endowment makes more than the entire judgment.

On ranking, the criteria changed. Plugging in the stats of the conservatory does bring some numbers down. But at the same time, the conservatory remains excellent and a fundamental part of the school and its intellectual life.

One point from the article that has not been noted in this chain. The article said that the college strongly urged the insurers to settle the case before trial when there was an opportunity to settle for less than 10 million. Based on this fact, it seems that the college was not on some litigation crusade, and it was insurers who said no. If true, the insurers will have to pay the bulk of the amount.

Not if the insurers refused to settle because they were denying coverage. At this point, it was becoming clear that the tort was the result of intentional actions by Administrators, and intentional torts are probably explicitly excluded from their coverage.

Anonymous wrote:This incident happened nearly a decade ago. Of course, all involved students are long gone, but so too is the entire administration. The president over the past five years is exceedingly impressive, the student dean that was the one who was the focus of the lawsuit is gone, and so too are other officials such as the gc.

On expenses, the tuition is basically the same as every other prestigious private college, but meets full financial need and has generous merit . It hss a 1.2 billion endowment. I assume that, in a pretty good quarter, the endowment makes more than the entire judgment.

On ranking, the criteria changed. Plugging in the stats of the conservatory does bring some numbers down. But at the same time, the conservatory remains excellent and a fundamental part of the school and its intellectual life.

One point from the article that has not been noted in this chain. The article said that the college strongly urged the insurers to settle the case before trial when there was an opportunity to settle for less than 10 million. Based on this fact, it seems that the college was not on some litigation crusade, and it was insurers who said no. If true, the insurers will have to pay the bulk of the amount.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would guess the vast majority of posts on this chain are from a small number of posters that have it in for Oberlin and an agenda to promote that post multiple times.

Of course they sued for coverage.

I have a rising college freshman attending a different LAC and a number of friends with kids there. It would have been a good likely for my student except for location. Strong education and a solid endowment and merit aid available.

I just do not hear about this suit except for on DCUM.

Oh, please. The bolded is just ridiculous and what someone says when they clearly want to dismiss and discredit. I'm sorry it distresses you so to be reminded by a number of different people just how moronic the administration at Oberlin is (and probably much of its student body). Perhaps if they didn't do moronic things, no one would be calling them out.
DP

Anonymous wrote:I would guess the vast majority of posts on this chain are from a small number of posters that have it in for Oberlin and an agenda to promote that post multiple times.

Of course they sued for coverage.

I have a rising college freshman attending a different LAC and a number of friends with kids there. It would have been a good likely for my student except for location. Strong education and a solid endowment and merit aid available.

I just do not hear about this suit except for on DCUM.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on the Gibson Bakery incident, Oberlin College is run and advised by idiots.

If Oberlin were based in San Francisco, then the school's actions would have been understandable, but still wrong.

This is one case where almost everyone is cheering for the insurance companies.

They aren’t idiots. They are narcissists. I suspect they are still angry and confused over why the imaginary reality they constructed didn’t turn out to be true, because like true narcissists they constructed a complex imaginary world where they were the victims. I’m sure they are angry and confused as to why the bakery fought back.

San Francisco just recalled school board members of the same ilk. I wouldn’t bet that SF would tolerate this blinding narcissism better.

I wrote the post to which you responded. Thank you.

I really like your post & enjoy reading your thoughts.

SERIOUS QUESTION: Can one be both an idiot & a narcissist under your well thought-out definition ? TIA

I don't think that these qualities are mutually exclusive, but I live near a narcissist and--until recently--have never dealt with one before. He is very intelligent, but also intensely vindictive about imaginary wrongs. I ask because you seem to understand better than I.

This is often true - narcissists, by definition, do not admit they are wrong. They also often believe they are more intelligent than they are, in reality. A narcissists reality is different from yours and mine. DP here.