Jump to content

UA rebranding


Recommended Posts

No misstating of doctoral degrees. I clearly stated that figure was for 2012. Again, nothing you're posting changes a thing. Is OU arguably first among equals on the left hand side of the napkin? Yes, I would concede that. That, however, is akin to being the better Cal State campus. Whatever marginal advantages you have, you still have a lot more in common with the rest of the Cal State system than you do with any of the UC campuses. I've also conceded that the OU endowment is the only truly substantive area where OU differentiates itself from the rest of the "left column" schools but is still nowhere close to Miami on the more meaningful endowment/student metric and UC by either absolute or per student measurements. We probably don't want to see how it stacks up to OSU, which I believe is far ahead of schedule on a $2.5B fundraising campaign, so I'd guess that $3.5B will be well over $4B in the next couple of years. Even in the one area where you truly do have a substantive advantage, you're still closer to us than you are to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what you wrote a few posts ago:

"Again, somebody show me how OU differentiates itself from Akron, Can't State, Toledo or Bowling Green."

I just showed you with real numbers from the BOR. You made the specious claim that recent fundraising in Athens was an aberration, and that annual figures were more commonly one-third of those most recently reported. I provided audited figures that show that not to be the case.

OU's endowment is larger than Miami's and, while smaller on a per-student basis, hasgrowing at a much faster pace during Rod McDavis's tenure.

Now you've changed your tune with, "Is OU arguably first among equals on the left hand side of the napkin? Yes, I would concede that."

OU has 22K+ apps for the upcoming fall and is projecting record enrollment for both undergrad and graduate population...in spite of the fact that it is, admittedly, located in B-F Egypt. Akron, in an urban area, is projecting another enrollment decrease. Nowhere close to equal. BG is losing traction, as well. Toledo - where we got our new prez - is hardly setting the world afire.

As an Akron faculty member, it pains me to see how badly we have missed our chance to become a premier urban university, one that offers an excellent educational value based on quality of faculty, instruction, support, and student experience. Under Dr. Proenza, we lost significant talent from our faculty and attempted to backfill with adjunct faculty that is in many cases sorely inadequate. Instructional materials and other mission critical resources are lacking. Faculty morale is at an all-time low. Students are unhappy with their relationship with the school due to inane fee and billing policies. We nickel and dime these kids to death while continually cheapening our product. Our infrastructure spending on football is bleeding us dry and we're seeing absolutely no return on that investment in terms of university branding or prestige. We tried to be something that we are not and as a result are losing what foothold we have historically enjoyed. Why? Because we've allowed a politically charged board of trustees to make countless bad decisions.

I for one, while being a big sports fan, believe the time has come for all of Ohio's secondary Div I schools to do the right thing and end the arms race in athletics. Let the OSUs of the world enjoy it while they can, but their reckoning will eventually come as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poll: Ohioans haven’t made up their minds on Ohio’s polytechnic university

22 percent of respondents said they supported the change, with 21 percent opposing it. With a majority unsure, the university still has an opportunity to educate people and get them on its side.
The poll also asked folks to name their favorite college sports team. Fifty-one percent chose Ohio State University, with 4 percent opting for UA and 3 percent picking Can't State.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what you wrote a few posts ago:

"Again, somebody show me how OU differentiates itself from Akron, Can't State, Toledo or Bowling Green."

I just showed you with real numbers from the BOR. You made the specious claim that recent fundraising in Athens was an aberration, and that annual figures were more commonly one-third of those most recently reported. I provided audited figures that show that not to be the case.

OU's endowment is larger than Miami's and, while smaller on a per-student basis, hasgrowing at a much faster pace during Rod McDavis's tenure.

Now you've changed your tune with, "Is OU arguably first among equals on the left hand side of the napkin? Yes, I would concede that."

OU has 22K+ apps for the upcoming fall and is projecting record enrollment for both undergrad and graduate population...in spite of the fact that it is, admittedly, located in B-F Egypt. Akron, in an urban area, is projecting another enrollment decrease. Nowhere close to equal. BG is losing traction, as well. Toledo - where we got our new prez - is hardly setting the world afire.

As an Akron faculty member, it pains me to see how badly we have missed our chance to become a premier urban university, one that offers an excellent educational value based on quality of faculty, instruction, support, and student experience. Under Dr. Proenza, we lost significant talent from our faculty and attempted to backfill with adjunct faculty that is in many cases sorely inadequate. Instructional materials and other mission critical resources are lacking. Faculty morale is at an all-time low. Students are unhappy with their relationship with the school due to inane fee and billing policies. We nickel and dime these kids to death while continually cheapening our product. Our infrastructure spending on football is bleeding us dry and we're seeing absolutely no return on that investment in terms of university branding or prestige. We tried to be something that we are not and as a result are losing what foothold we have historically enjoyed. Why? Because we've allowed a politically charged board of trustees to make countless bad decisions.

I for one, while being a big sports fan, believe the time has come for all of Ohio's secondary Div I schools to do the right thing and end the arms race in athletics. Let the OSUs of the world enjoy it while they can, but their reckoning will eventually come as well.

First of all, most schools have seen big jumps in applicants. It's a complex mix of demographics (the baby boom echo, which is now tailing off) and increased competitiveness for admission resulting in students applying to far more colleges than they did a generation ago. You keep throwing up this 22K application number which is great. It's clearly helped fuel your 10% rise in the size of your freshman classes between 2009 and 2014. It, however, is not indicative of any better quality students being interested in OU. If some more are applying, they are clearly using OU as a safety school and ending up elsewhere. What is key--and definitely shown in OU's own common data set--is that your freshman profile is NOT improving despite any jumps in applicants. It's stagnant and has even retrenched slightly at the very top (30+ACT and top tenth of HS class). That common data set also shows that the freshman class profile is much, much closer to UT, Can't State, BG and UA than it is to Miami or OSU. You're still competitive with UC, but the gap in UC's favor is widening.

Retention and Graduation rates are important stats and ones that OU does well in. That being said, you're still closer to the rest of us in this regard also than to OSU/Miami. Again, even when OU has an advantage, it is still playing in our league, not that of OSU/Miami. And I freely admit that UA is at the bottom of this metric, but that has to do with the bottom of our class still being largely open admissions. That 25th percentile gap between UA (19) and OU (22) is significant in retention and eventual graduation rates. You've still never addressed the issue of how the school that you think you should be compared to has a higher 25th percentile score (27) than OU does a 75th percentile score (26). Now, that is significant too. Hugely significant.

You bring up these OU advantages and think that somehow wipes away anything negative. Akron does more research than OU and has a couple of National Academy members on faculty. Despite being viewed as an open admission university (and that is far more significant than a rural location; we're not talking about the 1920s here) Akron enrolls a slightly higher proportion of 30+ and top tenth freshman than OU. This, however, is supposed to mean nothing whereas something so tangential and peripheral as licensing revenue is supposed to end any argument and move OU over to the right side of the napkin? And while my rhetoric may have been a little harsh, my entire point was that there was no basis for OU being on the right side of the napkin and by any metric (even endowment relative to the schools being looked at) OU was properly placed with its peer colleges on the left hand side. Is it the tallest midget? Perhaps, but it's still a midget.

We finally agree on something regarding the ridiculous athletic subsidies. You do know, however, that OU under McDavis is as bad as anyone in the country in this regard! $18.5M (66.5% of budget) subsidy to its AD. Akron, admittedly and unfortunately, is even worse at $21M.

As for your final shot at OSU, when or how is their reckoning at hand? I know that OU people have been telling themselves this for generations, but I just don't see it. In fact, by any metric, they are one of maybe 15 public universities in the country that have gained the critical mass to go private if they wanted to: $3.5B endowment (soon to be 4+), $400M/year in donations, $1B in unrestricted cash reserves separate from the endowment, closing in on a billion dollars a year in research funding, profitable athletic department that takes no subsidies from the university and highly selective freshman classes (average: 29 ACT and 93rd percentile of HS class) that are now third most selective in the Big Ten behind Northwestern and Michigan. Ohio State could spin off their branch campuses to the state community college system, lower their undergraduate enrollment by 15K (which would put their endowment $$/Student in the$100K range and raise their class profile equal to Michigan), use that cash reserve to get through the transition period and BOOM. Would that make them Harvard or Chicago? No, but I think you'd see something along the lines of USC come out the other side.

Getting back to Akron, I think myself LA and others all agree that Akron has problems and by some (but not most) of these metrics is the shortest midget. LA has very clearly stated that by themselves neither Can't State nor Akron can seemingly find the critical mass to move forward and that together they very well might find that critical mass. That to me is the biggest thing separating Akron/Can't State from OU. Like UC a decade ago, they don't think they have the world by the balls. They don't smugly (and laughably blindly) think that they are operating in the realm of OSU/Miami. They do, however, think that they need to improve and possibly think differently and not keep doing what they always have been doing if they are going to thrive in the future. I clearly stated that for the merged universities to pass OU by and become a peer of UC, they would need some very visionary leadership and at least a decade. Will that happen? I don't know, but at least we seem to be putting it on the table. OU just thinks they're perfect as they are and that somehow Pied Piper Roddy will lead them to the magic land. That is why, if I were to bet on who is where in 20 years, my money would be on Can't State and Akron rather than OU. And one more question--and this is something that I often asked of Proenza's most vocal supporters--if McDavis is really doing such a bang up job (and didn't his own faculty give him a vote of no confidence) why is he still there? Why has this great, visionary gem of a university President not been tapped on the shoulder to move up the food chain? To my knowledge nobody--much less an AAU university--has ever shown any interest in hiring this guy away? That speaks volumes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got a few other interesting things out of this article.

1) The opinion poll about UA's BRANDING was to OHIOANS in general. The people that count right now are UA Alums (donors) and current/prospective students.

2) Out of those 4% who listed Akron as their favorite team, those folks overwhelmingly were against the branding change.

3) Ohio's largest and "flagship" University only has the support of half of the state? That's a testament to the saturation of large Universities in the state. I'd be very curious to see the results of a poll like this in the other two comparable states with similar situations, Florida and Texas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got a few other interesting things out of this article.

1) The opinion poll about UA's BRANDING was to OHIOANS in general. The people that count right now are UA Alums (donors) and current/prospective students.

I would add the business and political leadership of NEO to that. It's important to show them that Akron is addressing its shortcomings and putting together a vision that serves not only its institutional interests but those of the region as a whole. That's why the rebranding can't be just about a name change and marketing/p.r. semantics. It has to merely be the front door of a much deeper self-examination and strategic plan to move forward. We have to show these people that--even if it's not going to supplant Case/Cleveland Clinic & OSU from the table, that Akron-Can't deserve to at least by in the conversation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote: "Akron does more research than OU and has a couple of National Academy members on faculty."

Fact: Most recent statistics from National Science Foundation for science and engineering research (engineering being a strength at Akron)

Total research expenditures:

OU 41.2M

UA 34.5M

Federally funded research, science & engineering

OU $16.6M

UA $10.9M

Total research - non science and engineerin8

OU $1.8M

UA $346K

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote: "Akron does more research than OU and has a couple of National Academy members on faculty."

Fact: Most recent statistics from National Science Foundation for science and engineering research (engineering being a strength at Akron)

Total research expenditures:

OU 41.2M

UA 34.5M

Federally funded research, science & engineering

OU $16.6M

UA $10.9M

Total research - non science and engineerin8

OU $1.8M

UA $346K

Can you link that please. Here's the NSF numbers that I used. Use spreadsheet number six which is total research performed annually over an eight year period. In the final year listed (2011) Akron is at $65.5M for 177th in the country. OU is at $57.6M for 189th in the country, just ahead of the University of Wyoming and not much higher than Cleveland State at $55.5M (193rd). If you have something more recent, I'd be interested to look at it.

And AGAIN, even if OU and UA have flipped places, it doesn't do a thing to change my underlying argument that OU is stll operating on the level of Akron, Can't, Toledo etc. You, time after time, either ignore this point or are too dense to comprehend it. The point isn't which school is doing an additional six or seven million dollars in research, which school has two National Academy members on faculty and which has none or which school's freshman are marginally better than the other. The underlying fact is that they are peer institutions! Simple question: Do you or do you not believe that OU should have been on the left side of the napkin?

Again, let me take the names off the schools and Sesame Street this shit for you:

University A does $50M in research funding. That is $7m less than University B. That is $800M less than University C. Which university is different than the rest? Which university is not like the others?

A freshman at University A has an average ACT of 22. A freshman at University B has an average ACT of 24. A freshman at university C has an average ACT of 29. Which freshman is different from the rest? Which freshman is not like the others?

Since you seem to think that the NSF isn't "a joke." I'll dig up their most recent evaluation and ranking of doctoral programs and how OU's rank relative to Akron, Toledo, BG and Can't on one hand and OSU, Case and Cincy on the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm always a little skeptical of stats without links as I like to check myself and see the full context of the numbers cited. Just briefly poking around on the National Science Foundation website, I found a data table of academic institutions ranked from 1-643 by total R&D expenditures here. UA was #169 and OU #185 in the latest posted rankings (2013).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm always a little skeptical of stats without links as I like to check myself and see the full context of the numbers cited. Just briefly poking around on the National Science Foundation website, I found a data table of academic institutions ranked from 1-643 by total R&D expenditures here. UA was #169 and OU #185 in the latest posted rankings (2013).

Yep. Even if OU has reversed that and now they're #169 and Akron is #185 it doesn't negate the underlying reality that both are peer institutions essentially operating at the same level. The inability of OU to accept that is a real liability. They think they're better than they are--hell, think that they are something fundamentally different than what they are--and that leads to complacency. UC has not been complacent and self-satisfied, which is why they are improving as a university and are a much better model for Akron, Can't or Ken-Kron to follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

zip-O-matic, while it's possible that OU may have passed UA in total R&D spending since the last numbers cited (2013), the recent trend has been more in UA's favor according to the table I linked to in my last post. Over the six years from 2008 through 2013, UA's ranking has risen every year from #224 in 2008 to #169 in 2013. Over the same period OU has been much flatter, slowly rising from #195 in 2008 to #185 in 2013. UA surpassed OU in this area in 2010 and steadily increased the gap through 2013.

Anyway, it's a waste of time trying to convince certain OU boosters that their alma mater is not superior to UA in every imaginable way. There's plenty to discuss about UA rebranding without getting sidetracked on debating which school may be ranked a little higher or lower on the same side of the napkin.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

zip-O-matic, while it's possible that OU may have passed UA in total R&D spending since the last numbers cited (2013), the recent trend has been more in UA's favor according to the table I linked to in my last post. Over the six years from 2008 through 2013, UA's ranking has risen ever year from #224 in 2008 to #169 in 2013. Over the same period OU has been much flatter, slowly rising from #195 in 2008 to #185 in 2013. UA surpassed OU in this area in 2010 and steadily increased the gap through 2013.

Anyway, it's a waste of time trying to convince certain OU boosters that their alma mater is not superior to UA in every imaginable way. There's plenty to discuss about UA rebranding without getting sidetracked on debating which school may be ranked a little higher or lower on the same side of the napkin.

Buffalo #57

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buffalo is on the New York napkin, or is it the Canadian napkin? :)

True story: Hilltopper and I were driving through Buffalo with his car's navigation system giving us verbal directions. All the way to Buffalo the navigation voice was telling us how many miles we had to go. As we entered the Buffalo city limits the navigation voice suddenly started giving distances in kilometers, as in "merge left in two kilometers." It did that all the way through Buffalo until we got to the opposite city limits, where it went back to giving distances in miles. Is that Canada or what, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've asked this question a couple of times in a couple of different threads. I suspect you haven't been following some of the statements that have come out of Columbus. Well, not really Columbus, because Ohio Governor John Kasich actually made the following comments at the New America Foundation, a think tank in Washington, D.C. It's not unreasonable to think that Governor Kasich has privately made this clear to Dr. Scarborough and other university presidents. This is what the guy who's ultimately responsible for Ohio's public university system, which includes UA, thinks. The guy who Dr. Scarborough has to deal with is, in fact, demanding change, or else.

So it seems to me that Dr. Scarborough has been asked to make a change, and he's trying to do what he believes to be the most appropriate change that will benefit UA within Ohio's public university system. But, as Governor Kasich points out, some at Ohio universities are averse to change and will likely protest against change. That's where we stand right now. If no change is forthcoming from individual universities, it's within the power of the Ohio Governor and State Legislature to make changes on their own.

This is a great point. One of the things that I think a merger (and I only see it between UA and Can't State) could accomplish is for the two institutions to take a lead role in eliminating redundant doctoral programs. Ohio has a ridiculous number of Ph.D programs spread across the state. I'll dig up the numbers on some pretty standard areas in humanities, social sciences, sciences and engineering. In some areas, Ohio literally has more than California despite that state having three times the number of four-year public universities and three and a half times the population. If Akron and Can't could really make an impact here, I think it would go a long way towards winning over a lot of support from the legislature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Akron's already a Confuscious institute. That's pretty big when it comes to having opportunities for global experience. A standing we hopefully don't stand to lose because of this "Polytechnique" nonsense.

These things are not all they're cracked up to be. In fact, there are huge issues of politicization and academic freedom involved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_Confucius_Institutes

http://www.aaup.org/article/confucius-institutes-threaten-academic-freedom#.VXxlUPlViko

The U of Chicago and several other schools have severed their ties and shut the centers down.

What are truly prestigious in academic circles are DoE National Resource Centers in Area Studies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did a back the envelope calculation a few months back on a different thread (I've been beating this drum for a couple of years now) and estimated there would be at least $30 million in annual savings (http://zipsnation.org/forums/topic/32302-neo-university/?p=230247) without really even digging into it.

The discouraging thing that I have taken from this discussion is that even with this type of merger, or even a near-term approach of "compete locally, cooperate everywhere else", a UA-Can't combo is still very undistinguished in almost every measure (but size/scale).

Great discussion and I think very much demonstrates the kind of discourse that should be happening throughout the country. I wish leaders in NEO would really study this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did a back the envelope calculation a few months back on a different thread (I've been beating this drum for a couple of years now) and estimated there would be at least $30 million in annual savings (http://zipsnation.org/forums/topic/32302-neo-university/?p=230247) without really even digging into it.

The discouraging thing that I have taken from this discussion is that even with this type of merger, or even a near-term approach of "compete locally, cooperate everywhere else", a UA-Can't combo is still very undistinguished in almost every measure (but size/scale).

Great discussion and I think very much demonstrates the kind of discourse that should be happening throughout the country. I wish leaders in NEO would really study this!

That's why I thought you were being overly optimistic in thinking that a merger could create a university that would challenge OSU. The more thought I've given to it though I do think merging just UA, NEOMU and Can't could create a university that would have the critical mass to grow into a peer of UC over the following decade and provide NEO with that major research university that UC is beginning to provide Cincy with. That's also why I am growing in favor of a name change. If the universities merge, they will need a name that defines them as a statewide, rather than regional, institution. "Ohio Tech" is the only one left.

While I think the napkin idea was brilliant in private and utterly stupid to be made public, I would refine it a bit. The schools on the left side of the napkin are not going to disappear. What I view as the strategic vision involved is which schools are going to be the University of California campuses and which are going to be the Cal State campuses. That's what the schools on the left hand of the napkin are struggling towards and competing for because there is only going to be one of them that makes the jump to the right hand column. What's the line from The Incredibles: If everyone is special, then no one is. Ohio tried that philosophy in the 60s and 70s, and it failed. The impetus for at least the last twenty years has been how to put the toothpaste back into the tube.

One of the key aspects to me would be--if politically allowable--to trim the combined enrollment down to around 45K undergraduates. If the merged schools phased that in over a five or six year period, they would have an undergraduate student body that would lose the open admissions stigma and compete with UC. I would foresee 45K undergrads at the main campus around 11K graduate ad professional students, plus another 12-15 thousand at the branch campuses.

Here's some numbers from last year

Freshman Class

Can't State 4142

UA 3462

TOTAL 7604

30+ Freshman

Can't State 205

UA 250

TOTAL 455 (OSU about 2900 out of 600 fewer total freshman to put things in perspective)

Top 10% Freshman

Can't State 621

UA 554

TOTAL 1175

Now suppose the merged universities shrunk those freshman classes by 2500 students a year. If we had the same number of high quality students (and if anything that number would rise as Ohio Tech gained a reputation for not being open admission) all of a sudden the percentages, for the merged universities, jump up to.

30+ ACT students: 9%

Top 10% students 23%

More importantly, the bottom of the class profile changes radically since that's where the culling would be. We're no longer taking anyone in the 12-17 range (currently about a fifth of the total freshman, mostly at Akron) and knocking off another 1000 students in the 18-23 range. By my calculations, we end up between OU and UC at the 75th percentile with 27 and pass OU and equal UC at the 25th percentile with 23. Same thing with high school class rank. What I would be very curious about (and something that I don't have access to the data to quantify it) is how much of the meat of OU's class (say graduating between top half and top quarter of HS class and 24-27 on the ACT) are kids from the Cleveland suburbs that are ending up at OU because they don't get into OSU (and maybe Miami)? I'd bet it's substantial, and I'd bet a significant number of them would come into play for the merged university that I just described.

Now, the two limiting factors would be the economics of losing tuition dollars and the messy politics of the move. 2500 a year might be a little ambitious. It might be 750 in year one 1500 in year two and then 2500 in year three. Then keep the freshman classes at 5000 from there on out unless driven upward by an increase in quality of applicants.

In everything except the endowment, the merged campuses would establish themselves as a distinct number three behind OSU and UC in graduate/research (I'm leaving Miami out of this since they kind of just follow their own path) and a peer of UC on the undergraduate level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talking about the politics of Akron potentially merging with Can't and attempting to position itself as the university that moves to the right hand column, I'd be interested in people's opinion on our likely allies and enemies in this. Some are easy.

OU, BGSU and UT would clearly fight it, as would the Toledo Blade which has always taken the line that if Toledo can't have something, they'd rather see the state do without out.

I think the Governor and Regents would support it as would most politicians in both parties that are interested in higher education. On the liberal left, you could appeal to those that are focused on higher quality colleges. Among conservatives, the focus would be on cutting costs and ending the over-saturation of campuses in Ohio. Among NEO politicians, the appeal would be keeping more high ability students from leaving the area and attracting more research funding to the region.

Ohio State, I think is a bit of a wild card, and they have the ability to sway many of the politicians above. I think all the data that's been presented shows that OSU won't see the merger as inherently a threat or the creation of a competitor. It will be the larger context that the merger takes place in that will determine their reaction. I think if it could be presented as part of a rationale, structured university system and one that would be a catalyst for ending redundant doctoral programs (something they've been lobbying for for 30 years) and lessen inter-university competition and empire building, I think they could see it as aligned with their interests. If they view it as going back to the free-for-all institutional empire building of the 60s and 70s, they would undoubtedly bring their lobbying to bear against it and probably kill it.

UC would probably oppose it, but I'm not 100% on this. It does creates a singular institution on their level that competes directly with it. OTOH, if it legitimizes the napkin and their place on it, they may see that competition as the lesser of two evils.

Case/Cleveland Clinic???????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't see any of the other state U.'s having much say in what happens with the NEO schools. I mean how chicken-poo would they have to be to lobby the state to try and suppress the improvement of higher education in Ohio because they might look less superior? And I would hope our governor, regents and legislators are above being susceptible to that kind of nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...