Skip to content

Bob

My feedback

6 results found

  1. 52 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Bob commented  · 

    Students should simply be EXEMPT from the IP policy. The students are paying the university for use of the facilities here, it is patently ridiculous that work arising from use of such facilities should become the property of CSM. We have already compensated CSM for our use of the facilities, it's called "tuition". We pay money, we get use of the facilities, it's that simple.

  2. 32 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Bob commented  · 

    This problem is not unique to CO209. Anyone who has had an exam in BE108 and taken their exams on glorified two-by-fours will know what I'm talking about. Furthermore, desks with attached chairs, found largely in Meyer and Alderson, are also highly uncomfortable.

    Fixing these rooms will obviously cost a lot of money. However, in the meantime I recommend that the student government urge the administration to require all future lecture halls to use the large table plus separate chair design, such as found in most of new Brown Building and Marquez Hall. This will, at the least, prevent the problem from getting any worse without costing any money.

  3. 18 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Bob commented  · 

    Alright, this is a poorly phrased suggestion but I agree, to an extent. Charging 10 cents per page for printing (25 cents for color) is excessive. I know that operating printers costs money, but it's silly to charge so much for printing when the vast majority of printed material is classwork. Part of our tuition should be earmarked for printing costs and reasonably-sized print jobs should be paid for with this money.

    Perhaps we could get the money by ending the massive inefficiencies caused by many staff members running their own printers. Many offices on campus give many staff members their own individual desktop printer, rather than requiring that all personnel print to a centrally-located large printer in the office. These desktop printers are generally of poor quality, have a much higher cost per page (CPP) than large printers, and suck up a large amount of time from CCIT staff members for maintenance. Large printers, on the other hand, are more cost efficient and are much more reliable. Many staff members will claim that they "need" their own printer for one reason or another. However, upon inspection one will find that their reasons don't hold water. More often than not, it's simply a matter of convenience for the employee. Eliminating these printers would save money (both directly and in the form of time spent fixing them), which could then be used to subsidize student print jobs for classwork.

  4. 44 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Bob commented  · 

    From prior experience, unless you really ride CCIT on this then they aren't going to change anything. I routinely receive emails that have been sent to the mandatory ugrad lists rather than a more appropriate optional list. Policies already exist to facilitate email reduction, these need much stricter enforcement.

    Furthermore, it is shameful that we haven't fixed this problem by now. Most campuses, companies, and other organizations figured out how to make appropriate use of email sometime in the late 1990s. However, for the last five years (or more) the Colorado School of Mines has continuously thrown up their hands and said "we don't know how to send less email." Perhaps administrative staff members need an intensive training course to teach them how to not click the "send" button.

  5. 143 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    UPDATE:
    Currently CTLM has a dedicated 24 hour computer lab with a lot of computers and software! Any student, no matter what major or year, can use these computers. USG acknowledges that there should be more space on campus for 24 hour dedicated computer labs. We will continue in the future to advocate for new computer labs. For example, the new library renovation project will create new space for more computer labs accessible to all students.

    Sincerely,
    USG

    Update: It is in the short future of capital planning to create two more computer labs. One will be a teaching lab in Chauvenet and the other will be in Brown building. A definite timeline is not yet known. It is still a class project to work on longer access in Brown.
    ___________________
    Update: One of the main reasons why getting access to this building is so difficult is because of…

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Bob commented  · 

    Has any progress been made on this idea? The fact that all computer labs on campus close down at or before 11:45 PM is simply ridiculous. Blastercard readers and security cameras are already present in all new buildings. What is the point of such entry control and security measures if the buildings are only accessible during the day? The equipment to grant and control student access to computer labs during non-business hours already exists and is installed! All it takes is a change in policy to allow students to make use of the equipment that they're already paying for. I would like to see this changed before next semester, there's simply no excuse for not getting it done by then.

  6. 89 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Pricing based on vehicle size: Most of the spots on campus are not on the street so we do not think that pricing based on vehicle size would be a good option.

    Pass enforcement: It makes it easier for the student workers to have the pass be consistently in one place.

    Parking office: We will bring up in our meeting that this is “hostile” but it’s a joke it is not meant to be taken seriously,

    Buying passes based on the day: We can bring this up in a meeting on the logistics of buying passes for specific days. Most people have classes at least four days of the week, however, so I don’t know how much of a benefit this would be.

    Motorcycle pass: We discussed this issue and decided that we are not going to pursue it. There are a lot of other issues that we are working…

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Bob commented  · 

    I agree that the sarcastic and hostile signs and articles displayed in the parking office need to be removed immediately. They are highly unprofessional and have no place being publicly displayed in an office. Furthermore, they contribute to an "us vs. them" attitude already prevalent between parking services and the rest of campus. The first thing someone sees when they walk into the office is a sign literally advertising the poor quality of parking services (i.e. "parking sucks"). How can anyone expect a civil dialogue to take place when these hostile signs display an aggressive attitude to any and all persons walking into the office?!

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Bob commented  · 

    I agree that the sarcastic and hostile signs and articles displayed in the parking office need to be removed immediately. They are highly unprofessional and have no place being publicly displayed in an office. Furthermore, they contribute to an "us vs. them" attitude already prevalent between parking services and the rest of campus. The first thing someone sees when they walk into the office is a sign literally advertising the poor quality of parking services (i.e. "parking sucks"). How can anyone expect a civil dialogue to take place when these hostile signs display an aggressive attitude to any and all persons walking into the office?!

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Bob commented  · 

    I agree that the sarcastic and hostile signs and articles displayed in the parking office need to be removed immediately. They are highly unprofessional and have no place being publicly displayed in an office. Furthermore, they contribute to an "us vs. them" attitude already prevalent between parking services and the rest of campus. The first thing someone sees when they walk into the office is a sign literally advertising the poor quality of parking services (i.e. "parking sucks"). How can anyone expect a civil dialogue to take place when these hostile signs display an aggressive attitude to any and all persons walking into the office?!

Feedback and Knowledge Base