Balsy

Without bringing emotion into it, isn't Terry Pluto being the adult it this situtation? Everything he said is correct, and has been mirrored in some manner on this forum by several members.

You shouldn't use comment sections, or editorials, as a means to gauge actual public support/dissapproval. People who are not happy about an issue are usually the one's who take the time to write about it, or those who want to defend it. Summer is a slow season for news, It's also the time when universities make a lot of big decisions. It's a perfect storm of not-good timing. Now, I'm not defending the ABJ, but Scarborough hasn't necessarily been the master of press or narratives either.

I am anxious to see how the encorporate the A-Roo as a secondary logo. If the helmets for football, and the new basketball floor are any indication...I'm not holding my breath. But a-Zip, we may have our differences of opinion, but I love your Zeal for the Zips.

I'm just saying, it's been floated that perhaps going to the Z and lowering the profile of the A-Roo is part of a larger movement to Rebrand the University. That doesn't appear to be the case. I will say that I like the updated website, it was in need of a revamp, and hopefully the Z gear will be pretty cool. Though it looks like it'll be a couple of years before we really see a lot of Z gear, because it seems more likely they'll roll it out slowly.

The brand guide probably belongs over in Eliminating the A-Roo thread, rather than the UA Rebranding one. The FAQ calls this a "Revamp" and states:

My head is about to explode over the criticism of UA faculty. What did you guys seriously expect the faculty to suggest? The faculty is made up of a lot of people, including your researchers. Several of the people blasting the faculty on this thread, praise Scarborough for being the "adult" and making difficult choices. It's a little hypocritical IMO. Why wouldn't it be responsible for the Faculty to recommend this, so it can be discussed, debated and throughly investigated. The university faced a $60million defecit. Shouldn't everything be on the table at that point? I'm a supporter of football. I desperately want to see UA succeed in everything. But seriously, we as a community need to stop cannibalizing ourselves and villainizing some part of our, seemingly very small, community. It's rather depressing.

Very good points Dave. And a-zip I do actually have a constructive solution, of possible solutions that I would definitely need more information about the actual financial situation of the university. As a counter to the implementation of MOOCs and a more immidiate focus would be on improving the value and quality of the education students recieve, and make that value in direct competiion with other public universities in the state. I'd go in more depth, but perhaps this should be a topic for another thread (off topic).

I'm well aware of my positions, thanks. The one bullet above though I'd like to perhaps clarify. If money is being spent on research, I want to see it. I don't trust (nor should anyone) research that isn't peer reviewed. Just because money was spent on research, doesn't mean it was good, which is why the peer review process IMO is so important. Your peer review of my criticisms, for example, is a good thing. If someone (perhaps DiG) can find peer reviewed research, and case studies deal with the success of a university to a polytechnic, I'd love to read it. I'm critical of decisions made by a lot of people at UA because (pardon my language) I give a damn about UA. And, IMO, the people who care most about something are the people who should also be most critical of it.

More press on UA.

I did read the article, thank you and I'll directly reference it to reiterate my criticism because apparently the thrust of my criticism has been lost. My criticism is not "where is the money coming from" it's "is this a prudent investment". The university has, evidently, questioned this investment in the past (quoting from the ABJ article below because I can't get the scripts to allow me to type below it). I still don't buy it's a prudent investment. The BOT originally got rid of the presidential mansion in the 80's because it was too expensive, and could perform those fundraising duties on campus. They then made a new investment in it again in 1999 for Proenza for the same purpose stated as with Scarborough. And now, one president later, we're paying even more money to update a presidential house. The numbers I was talking about wasn't the money used to update the house...but what are the gains that are made from having an independent presidential house for fundraising vs doing it on campus. We have a much nicer campus than we did in the 80's...or in 1999 when the presidential house was purchased for proenza to "fundraise" at. Apparently, IMO, fundraising at the presidential house has been a failure. I mean, seriously based on the information we've been given, how can you possibly justify it? I know, I know it's "what all the other univeristies do" or some other argument without numbers to back up its success. But I don't get how it can be justified that this is a prudent investment when you know you're facing a $60million defecit next year. The house was expected to be completed by Janurary right? So we should be swimming in those donations from the private fundraisers that Scarborough has been holding at the house right? Sorry, I'm not buying what's being sold. Everything that has been cut, directly impacts students: from the services that benefit them, to less teachers to teach them, to less scholarships to potentially become a student (yes I don't know if that's true or not...only assuming that's part of the cost savings from cutting baseball), to higher "fees" on upperclassman; while the administration is getting new toys.

I understand that's the rationalization for it, but I'm not buying it. There's always a need or a "defense" for spending money. I want to see the numbers. And if they are such dire times economically at UA, requiring athletics to share in the burden of cuts (while administration, again, is not shouldering any of the burden), is the presidential house really in that dire need of a retrofit to make that much of a measureable impact on fundraising? Call me a skeptic, but I believe we deserve more than what we've been given on that considering the stakes.

I disagree. Just because there a tough decisions to be made, does not mean that those decisions that are being made aren't up for criticism. The PD reported the baseball's budget for one season was $700,000. The cost of refurbishing the presidential mansion was upwards of $835,000. Why is cutting baseball a prudent, needed decision, while refurbishing the presidential mansion is a prudent investment in the university? Why is eliminating faculty positions (which is being done because they're not replacing retirees, which is a lot with changes to STRS, where younger replacements would start at a lower paygrade) a needed tough decision, but absolutely no changes to administration? Why are changes to faculty healthcare policies prudent, but not to administrative? These are just a couple examples that wouldn't necessarily account for $60million...but labeling things as "tough decisions" that needed to be done, absolutely does not exclude them from criticism. You're right, we don't have all the facts...another criticism that can be leveled against the administration. If you're going to parade transparency, you better damn well live up to it.

He just cut 215 positions plus the baseball team so he could afford it. Priorities here...

Putting my skepticism aside; Scarborough did make a comment about about including the Cadet Corps, and increasing the size of the band as a way to increase the excitement of the "game day experience" at halftime. How much it will, we shall see, but this should be seen as a positive comment towards the football program, in the light of the "THAT stadium" comments made a few weeks ago.

Has there been any good press while Scarborough has been president? Good lord, we could really use a win over Oklahoma this year...

I have always been an opponent of a merger, but after spending some time at the Indian University Purdue University Indianapolis Campus (UIPUI) I saw something I had never considered. Two independent universities sharing a market instead of directly competeing. IUPUI is unique because it offers students courses from both universities. Depending upon what the focus of said student is, the will end up with either a Purdue Or Indiana degree. In a sense it's a partnership, instead of competition, within a specific region. Now I'm not suggesting a merger involving Akron would require building a new campus...but this is a partnership that I might be more okay with. I thought I'd offer that as a model for others to look into if their interested.

Don't hold your breath.

Based on the financial situation, and cutting an entire sport to make up for the financial situation, the outlook of a new stadium is ..................

Give me a break, you seriously think the decision to hire Scarborough over Tressel (or not pursue Tressel) was because of faculty? Tressel was successful in his role as an administrator? Really!? Please. I think you've been drinking too much of the kool aide. But let's not let facts get in the way of beating up on "elitist faculty". YSU has a defecit as well that they've had to reduce, and it wasn't reduced by Tressel's glorious fundrasising efforts. There is another revenue stream that can be aided by having tenure-track contingent faculty...grant $$. Part of gaining tenure at a university involves an amount of published peer-reviewed research. This research can potentially bring in huge sums of grant money. But nevermind...yes, it's the evil "elitist snub nossed" researchers/educators that are the problem.

First off gen-eds are not worthless. The goal you're trying to achieve can be achieved using gen-eds. Using your example: GenEds exist to make a person more diverse in the first place. If an english major were to take biology courses for their gened natural science credit, they'd be more attractive to Biology fields for writing technical things. However, they won't be able to walk in the first day and immidiately begin doing techinical writing/copy editing...a business would have to train them in the specifics that they want them to do. I was hired because I demonstrated competency and high achievement in my respective fields...now they train me specifically in what they'd like me to do. As a student, why in the heck would you want to force yourself into a niche that may not exist in 5 years when you graduate? The best advice I got from a mentor of mine before I went to college was that "you are training for a job that hansn't yet been created"...in other words it's more important to be a well rounded individual than to focus on a niche. But I'm on board with what you say about adding specific curriculum. Technical writing wouldn't be a class, it should be a minor. Minors are added skills and don't paint you into a niche, necessarily. As with any minor, it'd probably be cross disciplinary depending upon the focus. But adding minors requires hiring faculty whom are competent in that aspect, which Akron doesn't seem likely anytime soon.

Well said Zach! Not only is his fundraising ability non-existent...but he seems to be losing people who'd annually write a check to UA, because of the policies he's been rolling out, and the fashion he's been rolling them out. If we had a real news reporting agency in the area, they should be hammering him on exactly who these "investors" are that he keeps refering to in just about every speech he has about initiatives.

I agree that tough decisions have got to be made. I was very critical of Proenza as a student at UA and frankly I still am (in hindsight). I personally don't think Proenza's administration had any real grasp of UA's finances. Most of his policies while I was there were reactionary. I interveiewed the CFO at the time for an article about the first $28-million defecit they were running back in 2013. At the time they were attributing over half of their defecit to the loss of stimuluss funds (which were never guarnteed from year to year) and the rest to enrollment (which they themselves decided to reduce through their policies). But Scarborough's first year has been...well, terrible. He spouts all the words of a leader, but the rollout of all his polices seem like one blunder after another. You're right that we should probably have a "wait and see approach" and I really want to be that way, but I've yet to see something that gives me hope.

It's staff not faculty. As discussed above. Staff are non-teaching non-tenure positions. Faculty were not in favor of hiring Tressel. But I'll admit, I was in favor of Scarborough over Tressel. I personally am regretting my decision to support him. But it's not like it's a democracy, our votes didn't matter in the decision anyways. The only thing we can decide is if going to continue to give red cents to UA or not. This alum is rethinking it, I don't like the direction Scarborough is heading.

So by first bullet point saying "no faculty" that means these are all staff positions, no teachers or administrators? Where are there 215 staff positions to cut? And who exactly is going to be taking up the work left by the vacancy of 215 positions...