http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/07/arts/music/07scho.htm...ref=arts&oref=slogin

This is appalling. Providing a luxury apartment to a president while ignoring more obvious priorities (like student recruitment and retention through bolstered financial aid) is an affront to current students and alumni.
The saddest part of this whole thing is the president who occupies the apartment thinks that the oppulent apartment will create a donor trickle down effect and catapult Manhattan School to the same level as Juilliard.

Ridiculous.

You see, this is precisely why you're a musician and not a business person.

Leave business and image building to people who know it, and stick to practicing excerpts. Any intelligent person can see that this kind of relatively small investment makes a statement which brings in the kind of people who can lift up an institution with significant donations. If you study fine arts philanthropy in other areas, it has become clear that private money is where it's at, and that doesn't mean telethons; it means wooing wealthy investors.

I think it's cute that musicians are such ardent socialists but sometimes it scares me how quickly they'll deride something just because it sounds expensive.

Boy, I was certainly waiting for this thread to appear. I can certainly understand both positions. As a musician, it just does not seem fair that a school, any school would commit funds to such an outlandish investment. Many musicians work long and hard with only a small percentage of them achieving success both professionally and financially so seeing something like this happen can be very frustrating. From the musician's perspective, the money is wasted and should have gone to other worthy causes that would support students, strengthen endowments, etc. Remember Oprah Winfrey spending millions in S. Africa to build a school when all her critics said she should have spent that money here in the US?

You have to look at the long term strategic thinking here.

Will it raise the Manhattan's School profile? Will it increase public awareness? Will it offer an environment to bring in private donors? Will it strengthen the relationship between Sirota and the school? The answer I believe is yes. Will it put it on the level of Juilliard? Doubtful but that is just my own personal opinion. Will is anger students? Probably. Will it piss off musicians? Yes. Which set of priorities are more important for the long term financial health of the school? That is subjective.

Now, from a financial standpoint, do the math. I don't know the exact price tag of the property with the renovations included but let's say it is $5 million total. If Sirota and the school are able to reach out to donors over the next 5 years increase the donorship by $10 million, that is a significant return on their investment.

Let's break it down in simple numbers. The real estate investment is $1 million dollars for each of the five years. The donorship's received are $2 million. That's a whopping 50% return on their investment (nowadays, if you get a 10% return on any yearly investment, you are doing exceptionally well). And, if you were to include the cost of maintaining the property plus Sirota's salary as expenses minus the appreciation as gains, the return on investment would be even higher. In turn, the school can take a portion or significant amount of the cash to funnel into the school programs, scholarships that our socialist musician comrades want.

I don't condone what the school is doing but I am simply looking at it from a business investment standpoint. It's a good investment only if the school hits its endowment goals. Only time will tell.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Larry M.,

Morassi, why so condescending?

It's got nothing to do with politics. Can you direct me to one assessment which illustrates how having a kick-a$$ apartment equals more money for the school? The article states quite clearly that other institutions don't always rely on the homes of their presidents for lavish parties and such. My own alma mater, Indiana, recently recieved a multi-million dollar gift without buying any expensive property for fancy parties. They focused on getting great faculty and hyping their famous alumni.

And as far as a "relatively small investment" - the furniture alone cost 1.3M!!! That's a full tuition scholarship for 13 MSM undergrad students.

It's possible to pull off what you're talking about with less money. Sometimes it scares me how quickly people think something's a good idea simply because a rich person says so.

Perhaps Morassi is actually the president of Manhattan??

"It's possible to pull off what you're talking about with less money. Sometimes it scares me how quickly people think something's a good idea simply because a rich person says so."

I've been involved in fund raising for things like this, and I know that it works. You don't build a place like Manhattan with bake sales... sorry. 13 scholarships wouldn't do much at all, because it's not going to build the school. If you want investors, you have to think like they do in other industries. Sorry to burst your hemp bubble, but that's life.

"hemp bubble"? Why are you being so nasty?

You didn't even speak to any of my other points. How is it that other institutions have been able to successfully raise money without raising a middle finger to their consituents with the most need (i.e., the students)?

The fact that wealthy people are important to non-profit funding is not exactly news (I do play full time in a professional symphony, you know). But if I gave 5 million to a school and they spent it on a lavish apartment, I might think twice about giving again. At the very least, I'd have some serious questions about MSM's game plan for the future.

Morassi, I don't know what you presume to know about me, doublebass, or any other musician's political views, (other than taking one sentence out of context). Maybe you could actually share some useful information from your vast experience rather than take "pot"-shots at us.

Why is this news? Colleges so commonly own real estate of this nature that it is amazing to me that this article was written/published. Are they going to publish an article about every college that has this kind of property? I think Julliard has a fancy place for the president of the school to live (although I think he doesn't use it as his primary residence). Was there an article specifically about Julliard's presidential apartment? Maybe a PR person from MSM was somehow able to get the paper to publish this - good exposure for MSM (although evidently not good exposure in light of some people's opinions). As far this being a bad way for MSM to spend money, I disagree. I'm sure MSM's endowment is invested in many different vehicles and owning high end Manhattan real estate is certainly a very good investment.

JoeBob is right - every higher education institution has a president's residence of some sort, either just for functions or for actual residence. In the development game, you've got to spend money to make money, and you've got to have a reliable setting which makes your past and potential donors comfortable. If it's a place to see and be seen, that makes it a place where the wallets and pocketbooks can open. As for the poor students deprived of their scholarships because of the expense: how many didn't get money over the past decades because there was no comparable facility available?

JoeBob,

I went to a prep school that has a large endowment and costs $40,000 a year to go to. Well, they needed more money to modernize (since the school is like 150 years old). So, they built a much nicer house on campus for the headmaster. It did wonders for fund raising.

Also, like the two aforementioned people said, most institutions own good real estate. It's just reality, and not a bad one at that. I'm sorry that it bothers you so much.

Morassi - I agree with you. If something I wrote made you believe that the MSM apartment "bothers me so much" then either I communicated poorly or you read my communication incorrectly. I stated that it is a good investment and that I disagree with those who say it is a bad way for MSM to spend money.

Hi Joebob,

My apologies. My post was directed at Rwhite. It is a mystery to me as to why I wrote your name instead of his.

I'm a little jealous that there's a heating debate that's hurting people's feelings and I'm not involved at all.

quote:

Originally posted by kazoolad:
I'm a little jealous that there's a heating debate that's hurting people's feelings and I'm not involved at all.

and your ugly too... but in a nice way. Krikey, I hope I don't get thrown off the forums for this comment! Run! It's the forum police! Heeeeeelp...

Don't worry, myauditions has only edited 2 posts in the 450 years this site has been online (pay no attention to the man behind the screen).

I apologize for starting up this dead thread. However, even though the thread is dead, the issue was never resolved because only time would tell if the investment in a luxury apartment for the president would pay off for the school. Well, here is the answer. The Chronicle of Higher Education posted the results of the U.S. Department of Education's "financial-responsibility test" A total of 150 private nonprofit colleges failed the test. Manhattan School of Music was one of them--the only music school to fail. It takes some digging around to look at all the data. I was shocked to see MSM on the list when I was glancing through the charts.

http://chronicle.com/article/1...olleges-Fail/123878/

"A total of 150 private nonprofit colleges failed the U.S. Department of Education's "financial-responsibility test" based on their condition in the 2009 fiscal year, data released on Thursday show...Colleges that fail the test are subject to additional federal scrutiny of student-aid funds and, in cases of the lowest scores, extra financial obligations."

Conclusion: Although I think all intentions were good at MSM, other schools should think twice before they invest in luxury accommodations for a school administrator with the thinking that it will elevate the fortunes of the school.

Thanks for resurrecting this thread - not because I'm terribly interested in MSM's financial responsibility rating, but for a peek into the kind of interaction that was common here 3 years ago.

Wow. Some people on this forum used to be incredibly rude. They appear to be mostly gone now :P

whoa, i almost felt like i walked into an old AOL chatroom. I've lurked in here since about 2005 & hadn't really seen something like this on here. Luckily people are pretty civil in these forums, which is a luxury compared to countless other online forums :-/ I really hope it stays this way.

on another note, is it just me, or do smileys not work anymore? All i see is a box with another little box where they should be.

quote:

on another note, is it just me, or do smileys not work anymore? All i see is a box with another little box where they should be.

I haven't been getting them either for awhile now.

Just to play devil's advocate for a second, does MSM's poor ranking in the Chronicle's 'financial responsibility test' necessarily have a correlation to the luxury apartment they outfitted for their president a few years back? Of course, it could be part of a pattern of poor financial decisions, but it's also possible they could have been even worse off without the apartment. It's hard to say for sure unless you actually have some numbers to compare. What is true for sure is that MSM has a history of difficulties competing for donors with the many other institutions in NYC; that the apartment was part of an effort to make it more attractive to donors; and that the economy totally tanked 2 years after it was completed, making fundraising more difficult for everyone. Given those circumstances, I think it's hard to draw any conclusions for sure. Clearly something is deeply wrong with MSM's finances for them to get such a poor rating, but even if the apartment were a phenomenal hit with donors, chances are things would not be going well right now.

That being said, perhaps they could have done without the Noguchi couch...