This widely quoted goal from the Southern at 150 plan seems to drive most management decisions at SIUC.
Can we do a proof that shows SIUC can not be one of the Top 75 in this blog post? I'm going to do this inside of 10 minutes and not check any facts, but it will be close enough to prove the point.
As most of you know there is a land grant university in every state. U of I is ours. The land grant universities are going to have more money than SIU for research in every case, but let's say that only 48 will for now. University of California has 8 or 9 campuses, they are each going to have more funding than SIUC. So 48 + 7 (had to subtract on because I already counted California's once in the 48) is 55 with more funding. Oregon and Washington have two land grant universities, so that is 57. Texas has 5 that SIUC can't catch, so 61. Purdue and IU in Indiana, Oklahoma has 2 as well. You get the idea? Without knowing anything and working hard I can count to 65. Now we know that universities in big cities do better on funding, let's count in the top 25 cities by population (NFL cities if you like), Boston, Philadelphia, NYC and I think we might find a few more. Florida and the southern states in general are doing well and have a couple of big universities each. North Carolina and Arizona has 2 big ones too.
This doesn't get into all the other universities that also want go get the big money and are better positioned to do it.
We all realize that the population of Illinois is falling behind the growth of other states and area. For example, our US Congress count is down. Doesn't it makes sense that the rural universities that are being surrounded by growth in one of the USA's 7 or 8 belts of large population growth will grab the brass ring instead of SIUC?
The people who wrote the Southern at 150 undermined the creditability of the entire plan by choosing this impossible number of 75. Ask anyone who is in higher education, everyone knows that 75 is just stupid. Instead of realizing they made a mistake, the SIUC administration continues to use 75 everywhere. Now as you get down towards 100, maybe you can do that if you are very lucky.
If you didn't know it before, let me be the first one to tell you that 75 based on dollars isn't possible. Unless you get very lucky.
About being lucky and getting back to my earlier patent post(s). SIUC can accomplish this goal if someone were to drop a Billion Dollars in their lap and only through a lucky win via a patent do I see the free Billion happening. Every patent is a lottery ticket and only if SIUC pays to buy them can get lucky and win.
3 comments:
Peter,
You need to send the University a bill for $76,520. That's how much they paid the Washington Advisory Group (Stanley Ikenberry, former Prez of U of I, a member) for their July 2003 report that said we can't realistically hope to get anywhere near top 75.
Lots of ironies here. First, we hire an outside firm to evaluate our research infrastructure. That has always been the province of the Graduate Council. You'd think they'd be pissed, right?
It turns out that the Grad Council Executive Committee knew about it, but decided to conceal it from the membership until it was a fait accompli.
Now, usually when you do a secret maneuver of this sort (the WAG never really looked at the research infrastructure), you sort of expect that you'll get the result you wanted.
Instead, the WAG report says maybe SIUC can do it, but it's like maybe a cow can jump over the moon, too.
They spent all that money, they wiped out any remaining link of accountability between administration and faculty constituency representation, and they got told they suck and are going to keep sucking.
So they got a bunch of people to put on tuxedos and dance around the Arena in a tent acting like Southern at 150 has been handed down like Moses' tablets.
Two years after Wendler's gone, people aren't even going to remember the words "Southern at 150."
Actually, I can confirm some of what anonymous wrote. Back when I was on A/P Staff Council, I saw that the expenditure had been approved by the BoT and I wondered about the GC's reaction. I had been rabble-rousing enough and was determined to keep my mouth shut for at least one meeting.
By coincidence, the A/P representative to the GC, Brian Butler, happened to be at the next meeting of A/P SC to report on what the GC had been up to and I couldn't help but ask what the GC reaction was to the hiring of an outside firm. (This is why I don't serve on constituency representation groups anymore - I can't resist asking obvious questions.)
He said they weren't happy about it. Also, it's no secret that I run about $2 million worth of research infrastructure. WAG never visited me or any other "shop" director. I thought that was rather strange, given their assignment. I guess they ran the numbers essentially the way Peter did and arrived at Peter's conclusions.
Let me not close on a negative note, however: I think it's fine to be lower on the food chain when it comes to research dollars - as long as SIUC can muster enough of a respectable research performance to show that we have some good programs, good scholars and researchers, and can make the sort of contributions that Delyte Morris may have envisioned.
If it's not top 75, okay. Let's be reasonable about that and use the leftover energy to think about the students, the educational needs of the region and the country, and the support needs of the region.
I have been satisfied that I - bread mold, pond scum, a mere staffer - am internationally known in my profession and respected by more than a few of my peers - and I have achieved that recognition while being at SIUC (although I am not recognized that way at SIUC). Professional satisfaction is achievable here but I think the best recipe is to make peace with assuming the role of educator along with researcher.
As far as balancing the University's budget without the maximum number of research dollars - I think that sooner or later politicians will have to work up the courage to tell the taxpayers that their childrens' opportunities are grim if we don't pour tax money into education so as to keep up with other countries who are doing so.
"If it's not top 75, okay. Let's be reasonable about that and use the leftover energy to think about the students...."
As someone in a no-big-fed-dollars field, I smile (smirk?) at the Top 75 hubris. Further, I don't accept that the USA needs 75 major research universities -- those doing good work that attracts fed dollars, like Bill Stevens, could go where the SUSTAINED focus is on research. As his anecdote illustrates, SIUC management doesn't really "watch shop."
Here are my ruminations/rec's, for what they are worth:
1. Illinois needs to decide where to place its research focus. That is going to be on U of I plus a couple of the privates (Northwestern, U of Chicago). Does a state need FOUR major research universities? Believe it or not, I had never heard of SIU before I interviewed here and my experience is probably replicated across campus even in fields that think that are better than their peers rate them. As for the state focus on U of I, I am reminded of Carnegie's advice to young men:
"Some say don't put all your eggs in one basket. I say that is all wrong. Put all your eggs in one basket AND WATCH THAT BASKET."
They ain't watching here and we aren't the ONE basket.
2. Admittedly, my focus is that of a humanities member, but given #1 there should be a greater focus on students. Students come in second or third place in far too many areas. Our six-year grad rate is miserable: 38% (but that is true of other no-name, low-admission standards schools).
If SIU can't decide what it wants to be--research or teaching institution--then perhaps the state/BOT should do something radical. Move research to SIUE (easier to attract people) and turn the rest of the campus into a public liberal arts school. I don't see that happening but on the liberal arts end, it would be nice to work with students who are there for a different type of education. THis is pie-in-the-sky because this school and every other No Name U. will "muddle through." Which brings me to my most important recommendation:
3. INCENTIVE PAY: _not_ merit pay, which is impossible to award or impose in a low raise environment. Case in point: My department, which is one of the few with detailed operating papers and salary formula invokes merit points ONLY when raises exceed 3%. I could publish a book a year (impossible) and barely exceed inflation even if raises were more than 3%.
Here's how incentive pay works as a win-win:
Currently, many departments have 2-2 teaching loads. Give faculty the option of going to 3-3 with a 33% pay increase. Teach 50% more credit hours (= $$$$) and give the participating faculty 2/3 of the increased revenue. The university saves the 1/3 with additional savings from not having to pay the fringe benefits of hiring additional faculty.
If 200 of the 700 tenured faculty did this:
200 X 2 additional courses = 400 X 26 (average ratio per student) = 10,400 X 3 (credit hours per course) = 31,200 credit hours saved by the administration. $31,200 X 380 (average tuition/fee cost per course) = $11.8 million/year
That would face parts of the university to decide where to earn their money -- federal funds (some of the sciences) or student credit hours (other areas).
Post a Comment