UA rebranding

[Dave in Green]

zip-O-matic and LosAngelesZipFan, I've enjoyed reading your posts on higher education over the years. You both appear to have a fair amount of knowledge about and interest in the subject. You have slightly different takes on various aspects, and your discussion brings out points that are interesting to me.

By the way, for those who weren't aware, there are two UA students on the UA Board of Trustees. While they're non-voting members, they nonetheless represent the student POV and have access to the same detailed information that voting members of the BoT use to make their decisions about UA actions. They would have better knowledge about the thinking behind the polytechnic thing than any of us, so it would be interesting to know what their thinking is. Their names are Garrett E. Dowd and Matthew R. Hull, so if anyone on here knows either of them you might want to engage them in a discussion on their polytechnic thoughts.

[zip-O-matic]

All the rankings are based on exclusion-- who you don't let in. What ASU has done the past decade is tried to remain inclusive while also driving quality. The reality is that the rankings won't ever totally reflect the quality as long as they are based on exclusion. It's definitely not a 'diploma mill', has some top tier programs (see recent Fast Company for their ebola work or their work on the Mars explorer, etc.), and as their president says, the honors school has a better student quality profile and is larger than his prior school Columbia, but because it's inside a much larger U, doesn't get recognized.

Arizona State's honors college has a student profile nowhere near that of Columbia or any Ivy. Average ACT 28.9/SAT 1300. That's pretty much the average for the freshman class (overall not honors) at OSU recently and would not get you into any Ivy League college without some serious extra-curricular bonus points. I'm certain that there are some students there with Ivy level credentials, but if those are the averages, I'd venture a guess that it's not more than 10% or 15%. http://barretthonors.asu.edu/about/facts/

And I still maintain that the true value of the endowment is how large an institution it has to serve, how thinly it has to be spread. You can't tell me that $600 million could provide the same quality level at an 88K student university as it does at $16K Miami. You might have a few well endowed and staffed departments and some scholarships to throw at the honors college students, but the vast majority of the university would be starved for funds.

As Arizona State makes these changes, I'd be very interested to see how their average freshman profile changes, research funding rises or declines and how well they do in some other areas such as National Academy members on faculty. The one thing that leads me to kind of see things your way is that Akron and Can't really have nowhere to go but up by most of these metrics, so perhaps the big gamble is the right one.

[LosAngelesZipFan]

I won't argue the data-- just reporting what Pres. Crow has said on different occasions.

What I have really enjoyed about working with the team at ASU is that they are driven to innovate and change the model to serve society. Elite private universities have something like 1% of college students-- about the amount that would fit in Michigan Stadium. We are country of 350 million people on the way to 450 million in our lifetimes. If we are moving towards a future where more and more jobs require higher education of some sort, the answer is not going to be found in elites or in public universities chasing elite status. As parents, we are obsessed with rankings and terrified that if our kids don't go to an elite school, they will be economically hobbled. But the data doesn't support that fear.

ASU is basically an open enrollment institution (88% acceptance rate) but Crow has also noted that their admission standards are the same as what UCLA's was in the 1950's. Is open enrollment and large size by definition inversely-related to quality? If you went to UA and believe you had a quality education, your answer has to be no. Here is a great discussion on all this, with Crow and Frank Bruni (Where You Go Is Not Who You’ll Be):

http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/category/events/video-archive/?postId=59446

The larger social point is that something has to change-- we have to figure out how to provide high quality educational outcomes that prepare millions of people for the jobs of the future, and do so far more efficiently than we have done on in the past. I think institutional scale can be a big enabler in that, and the conclusion I reached 20+ years ago after graduation from UA was that we probably couldn't grow organically to that scale given the presence of the other public universities in NEO, each competing for a slice of a static pie of students, attention, and support. Nothing has altered this since I left UA in 1989-- YSU, CSU, Can't, and Akron have all built buildings and evolved, but none have the ability to dramatically alter their scale or perceived quality, either in the absolute or in relation to each other.

In his City Club speech, Scarborough identified all the key factors that lead to a conclusion that this status quo may very well not be supportable for another 20 years-- that these 4 universities operating in the same way is an increasingly unlikely scenario because the state will probably force change, because it can't afford not to. He then delivered a not very innovative solution and certainly not one that has ignited the larger communities' interest/passion. What I hope this branding discussion evolves into is real innovative thinking about the role UA plays, in NEO and beyond.

[zip-O-matic]

LA,

Assuming a merger makes sense, I think it shouldn't be all about just being as big as possible and shoving as many students through as possible. One thing that I'm a very strong proponent of is a regulated, hierarchical public university system. The great thing about the California system (and a reason why tuition was so reasonable for so long) was that it was strictly regulated. Every school wasn't free go out and embark on a quest to challenge Berkeley. It allowed unnecessary redundancies to be avoided and resources to be allocated more effectively. Competition is not always a good thing when it is internal, whether within a corporation, a government or a university system. Often, it leads to gross inefficiencies as individual units lose sight of the big picture and pursue their own narrow empire building. It seems too as though this is the dominant line of thinking in both political parties in Ohio, so attempting to fight the man on this front would probably not end well.

Now, this leads me to an area that's probably not going to be very popular. Ohio has a flagship campus. That boat sailed in the 1870s, was written into law by the Ohio legislature in 1906 and confirmed by outside sources in 1916 with OSU's election into the AAU (ahead of such universities as Northwestern, Texas, North Carolina, Washington, Duke and Vanderbilt). It's not going to change. Ohio is not California. It doesn't need--nor can afford--a Berkeley AND a UCLA. To make a comparison, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois would need to be a single state with a Chicago at each end for that comparison to be apt. What I would want to see from Akron (and perhaps the merged college) with the "Polytechnic" designation is a long term strategic plan as to what its role in a structured, rational Ohio public university system should be. This too is what the state wants to see, and it seems to be one of the few truly bipartisan issues that's transcended recent Democratic and Republican Governors. Personally, I think OU is the most pathetic university in America. Their entire sense of identity and self-worth and outlook is based on looking in the mirror and not seeing OSU reflected back at them. They are obsessed as an institution with the notion that they are just around the corner from this great historic wrong being righted, 150 years of Ohio higher education policy being undone and their imminent ascension to their rightful seat on the Iron Throne at hand. And quite frankly, it has stifled them as an institution. They are so wrapped up in not being OSU that they never give any honest thought as to what they could realistically be. All the while, they haven't even noticed UC passing them by in every quality metric: research, endowment, faculty stature, undergraduate selectivity. Despite it's history and name, I think there were very solid reasons that OU was not on the right side of that napkin. OU is on a glide path into the side of the mountain, and they can't even be bothered from taking their dicks out of their hands to look outside the cockpit to notice their impending doom. For all of UA's considerable challenges, I wouldn't trade places with OU for anything.

So, in my eyes, the issue is that chasing the co-flagship dream is illusory and ultimately self-defeating, and quite frankly. UC and NEOU would compete against each other while OSU sails above the fray with that endowment, AAU membership, statewide cultural and economic reach, Big Ten sports and most favored son status with the state in any event. So what would the long term strategic plan for Ohio Tech (possibly merged w Can't and CSU) be? IMO:

• A merged campus should slim down to around 50K undergraduates.
• Spin off at least half of Can't's ridiculously too large branch campus system into independent community colleges.
• Raise admissions standards to the UC level while realizing that the next level (OSU/Big Ten/Miami) is out of reach and pursuing it (see OU's futility) is both not going to be successful while taking attention away from achievable goals. Use what's left of Can't's branch system as a place for kids who don't make the first cut to spend a year or two before transferring. You can't attract the faculty who attract the research and grad students if you're an open admissions university.
• Focus on the "outcomes" that are important to the state right now--graduation rates, retention and debt load. UA has not done this well and is being penalized under the current funding system for it.
• Keep YSU out of the merger to act as the open admission university for NEO.
• Consolidate graduate and research programs into core competencies--again realizing that we can be either a very good focused university or a mediocre OSU clone. That's going to mean eliminating some Ph.D programs and probably the Akron law school.
• Above all, study the recent history of UC and OU because there is a stark contrast between the school that's done it correctly and the school that does nothing but look in the mirror and get angry and bitter.

[lance99]

Arizona State's honors college has a student profile nowhere near that of Columbia or any Ivy. Average ACT 28.9/SAT 1300. That's pretty much the average for the freshman class (overall not honors) at OSU recently and would not get you into any Ivy League college without some serious extra-curricular bonus points. I'm certain that there are some students there with Ivy level credentials, but if those are the averages, I'd venture a guess that it's not more than 10% or 15%. http://barretthonors.asu.edu/about/facts/

And I still maintain that the true value of the endowment is how large an institution it has to serve, how thinly it has to be spread. You can't tell me that $600 million could provide the same quality level at an 88K student university as it does at $16K Miami. You might have a few well endowed and staffed departments and some scholarships to throw at the honors college students, but the vast majority of the university would be starved for funds.

As Arizona State makes these changes, I'd be very interested to see how their average freshman profile changes, research funding rises or declines and how well they do in some other areas such as National Academy members on faculty. The one thing that leads me to kind of see things your way is that Akron and Can't really have nowhere to go but up by most of these metrics, so perhaps the big gamble is the right one.

Keep in mind that ASU is heavily going after the online student. IMHO, a loosing proposition. There is no way Tempe(and I lived there for a time) would let that city be another Columbus.

Volume can be bad. You can never spell quality with a 'K'.

Akron needs to expand on Polymers and plastics(and other new age theconolies) to expand.

[skip-zip]

I think Zip-O-Matic's post about the endowments, and how they would decrease per student if there was a merger, is a really fantastic point.

I know schools need money, and need to increase enrollment to bring in more tuition money. But, where does that put us if we can't utilize our resources to produce a better level of education for our students?

So, it seems like we're seeing a Quality vs. Quantity issue here. How do we elevate the University of Akron as a University? More students, or more notoriety for the quality of education and the students that it produces?

I think it's definitely the latter.

I would have originally thought that having a mega-sized student population, creating more alums, and more potential future donors would eventually provide more resources. But that might not be the case.

[Dave in Green]

I agree with those who don't get this:

... I don't agree that looking at endowment per student is the right metric-- it is the size of the endowment that matters (stop snickering) and a combined UA-Can't-YSU-CSU would be close to $600M (for comparison Miami is $570M). ...

Isn't this equivalent to saying that if you get enough poor people together that their combined wealth will match a single rich person? But that doesn't mean that each of the poor people will live as comfortably as the single rich person. Universities use endowments to assist students. The greater the endowments the more students can be assisted. But the more students the thinner the assistance is spread.

Endowments generally come from successful people who've accumulated more wealth over their lives than most. Ideally you'd want your university to turn out lots of financially successful people with strong ties to their alma mater. Higher education endowments can also come from businesses who see their investment paying dividends to their business. A polytechnic university by definition should be more attractive to business by turning out students with skills valued by business. For those who've said UA needs to do a better job of getting the polytechnic message out, check out the updated UA website.

[LosAngelesZipFan]

More great points and discussion...

Endowments are used for much more than assisting students-- its a pool of money for strategic initiatives, attracting professors, expanding into new areas, etc. The bigger the overall endowment, the more resources available to do these things.

I think it is interesting to look at it on a per student basis, but that's not generally how it is tracked-- it is usually about the overall size of the endowment. Bigger is better. And yes bigger per student is better as well.

I think the point that z-o-m was making was Can't had a lower per student endowment which would a reason not to consider a merger. In a world of unlimited choices, I might agree. But the size of Can't's endowment (insert Dix Stadium joke here) is not really relevant to considering the logic of a merger. The key drivers are the proximity of the institutions serving the same, static region-- and by being static means it is in essence shrinking in importance as other regions grow-- such that neither can grow much in relation to the other. The relative positions of Akron and Can't by almost any measure is practically the same as it was in 1985-- neither has access to the resources to really grow beyond current state because they are supported by, and therefore competing for, the exact same set of limited resources.

One university with these resources would have to be better than 2 splitting them. One chemistry department with the best professors from each. One football team with the best from each. One set of administrators, etc. It's really just a matter of focusing the resources in the most efficient way.

Z-o-m's point about the flagship is spot on-- I don't think a combined U initially competes as a flagship of Ohio. But I do think it competes very well with Cincy and in time, with success, and assuming NEO would see it as its university---the way Cincy sees UC-- then more resources would get generated from a very large alumni base. I think the list of attributes you mention are interesting, but my bias is still to go for scale as the best way to get to more impact on society and that quality can come with scale. To say it has to be choice of one or the other is, in my estimation, a very false choice.

But beyond that, how can UA change the perception of what it is? It doesn't have and cannot find the resources to dramatically change it's position in the world. Adding 'polytech' isnt going to do that. Marketing isn't going to do that. I really don't know what other game-changer options are available. And I don't think that status quo can be sustained, or is even desirable, for another 20 years. I have to admit that I did think the campus investment of the early Proenza years would yield something tangible in terms of enrollment, endowment, etc. It doesn't appear that it has.

Would love to hear if anyone can think of a different game changer for UA, short of an alum hitting it huge with an IPO and then donating a couple billion to UA. USC has dramatically improved its reputation over the last 20 years, but that has largely come as a result of raising more money than all but a couple of universities consistently for the last 5 or 10 years-- Harvard and Stanford levels; $5,6,7 billion. It would take a massive inflow of dollars for UA to dramatically alter its ranking (which again I don't think reflects actual quality).

[LosAngelesZipFan]

Sorry to answer my own post, but one way to potentially change the game would be to dramatically increase the number international students paying very high tuition rates. I don't think UA could do this alone, but a combo of UA and Can't might be able to attract that. Maybe create an combined "international U"?

[Dave in Green]

... Endowments are used for much more than assisting students-- its a pool of money for strategic initiatives, attracting professors, expanding into new areas, etc. The bigger the overall endowment, the more resources available to do these things.

I think it is interesting to look at it on a per student basis, but that's not generally how it is tracked-- it is usually about the overall size of the endowment. Bigger is better. And yes bigger per student is better as well. ...

... But beyond that, how can UA change the perception of what it is? It doesn't have and cannot find the resources to dramatically change it's position in the world. Adding 'polytech' isnt going to do that. Marketing isn't going to do that. ...

Maybe I'm a little slow, but I still don't get this. Everything should be all about assisting students be more successful in life. This is why most people pay lots of money to go to college. Strategic initiatives, attracting professors, expanding into new areas, etc., is all related to assisting students be more successful. Anyone in the business world would be disappointed to learn that endowment per student is not generally tracked. To take an extreme example, would you rather be at a school with 10,000 students and $1,000,000,000 in endowments or 100,000 students and $1,000,000,000 in endowments? All other factors being equal, at which of those two schools is each student individually going to benefit the most from endowments?

I would also question the assumption that this is nothing more than a name (polytechnic) and a marketing strategy. Have you spent as many quality hours with Dr. Scarborough as you say you have with the ASU President? If not, how would you know that there isn't a bigger plan behind the name and marketing than the little you've picked up on the internet? I could understand if, for example, you were in the business of selling consulting services to universities and you had done business with ASU that you would naturally be inclined to hold that up as a model. But in that case full disclosure would require that you disclose that you are in the business of convincing others that they are less likely to be successful if they don't pay for your professional advice.

[LosAngelesZipFan]

I haven't met Scarborough yet. Had spent a little time with Proenza. My ASU project is the first I've had in higher ed. My observations are based on doing a deep dive into the space the last few months. None of what what I have been opining about is driven by any thought of getting a project of some sort.

I think it'd be great if everything was about the students, but clearly it's not. UA spending $20 million on football annually or $60 million on a stadium is not intended to yield much for the students other than hopefully something to cheer about, a richer collegiate experience, and ultimately higher awareness that adds to the value of the degree. The choices of how to use endowment funding is about advancing the institution...and of course every administrator would say that they are making decisions that, in the end advance the student in some way.

And your example isn't extreme, it's reality. Harvard has a $35 billion endowment. But, those schools only admit a small percentage of applicants so its not a matter of would you rather be x or y. The reality is how does a school like UA or Can't, with limited access to resources, get to the next level in the current environment because the vast majority of students won't be going to Harvard.

Boy I sure hope the strategy is more thoughtful than the marketing roll out has been! I've said I like the idea of polytech as an organizing principle-- I really do think its consistent with the very reasons I went to UA in the first place. But call me dubious that an approach from 18th century France is going to yield the kind of change we probably need...

[Dave in Green]

Thanks for the clarification. But I still have questions about this:

... Boy I sure hope the strategy is more thoughtful than the marketing roll out has been! I've said I like the idea of polytech as an organizing principle-- I really do think its consistent with the very reasons I went to UA in the first place. But call me dubious that an approach from 18th century France is going to yield the kind of change we probably need...

I thought we had already agreed that the marketing roll out had been short-circuited by a premature mention on this forum that resulted in an ABJ expose story and a subsequent protest over a plan that hadn't been fully developed. If you disagree with that please say so and let's discuss further.

As for 18th century ideas, some are still valid. Isaac Newton formulated the laws of motion and universal gravitation in the 16th century and they're still valid. Not all that's old is bad and not all that's new is good, and I question when anyone argues otherwise.

[a-zip]

Lots of good comments and information……Thanks everyone, I have enjoyed reading.

[LosAngelesZipFan]

Thanks for the clarification. But I still have questions about this:

I thought we had already agreed that the marketing roll out had been short-circuited by a premature mention on this forum that resulted in an ABJ expose story and a subsequent protest over a plan that hadn't been fully developed. If you disagree with that please say so and let's discuss further.

As for 18th century ideas, some are still valid. Isaac Newton formulated the laws of motion and universal gravitation in the 16th century and they're still valid. Not all that's old is bad and not all that's new is good, and I question when anyone argues otherwise.

In an earlier post I had laid out my admittedly "Monday morning QB" rollout which was centered on the notion of not even using the word but rather focusing on the attributes of a polytechnic. I agree the administration got surprised when the gun went off half cocked (I didn't realize it was here that this happened though).

I agree with the premise of this evolution of UA's positioning, but to be meaningful this has to be more than just a descriptor added to the logo-- "Ohio's Polytechnic". It has to be something that the entire University organizes itself around and there is real change as a result of this focus. Otherwise, it's "just" marketing.

I agree things got off to a premature start-- the discussion kind of got out of their control and everyone was focused on name changes, etc., but the timing of all this was just a few weeks before the City Club speech so it's not like the cat got out of the bag 9 months before the messaging was supposed to be ready. My point has been that I wish the admin would have focused on the idea and attributes of a polytechnic, turned that into strategic guidance, rolled that out over the next year, and only then start to communicate the word itself.

Some research on the word itself would most likely have indicated that most people don't get it and many would equate it to "tech school". Rather than elevating and differentiating UA, the word diminished and confused.

Valid point on Newton...gravity was not a passing fad.

[LosAngelesZipFan]

Sorry to answer my own post, but one way to potentially change the game would be to dramatically increase the number international students paying very high tuition rates. I don't think UA could do this alone, but a combo of UA and Can't might be able to attract that. Maybe create an combined "international U"?

To refine this thought a bit, what if Akron and Can't adopted a "compete in the neighborhood, but cooperate everywhere else" mindset. They remain separate, but look for ways to JV to benefit NEO.

For example, UA and Can't create a joint "international institute" that was then jointly marketed abroad to attract international students in large numbers to attend UA and Can't. It's almost a "meta-university", an overlay on both schools. The goal is to get, say, 15,000 students from around the world each paying double the standard tuition surcharge (or whatever). This would be a great influx of young talent to NEO-- driven, entrepreneurial, young people with fresh perspectives. Maybe a special immigration program can be created to keep them in NEO.

Not saying this is a new idea-- many public universities have been doing this over the past 20 years and it really helps them boost revenue. Both UA and Can't have programs for attracting international students, but neither is known for this. The idea of this joint international institute would be to create something that goes beyond what either could do individually.

Let's say each current spends $5 million on these international programs. Together, the have $10 million to spend. But they are currently spending it building 2 brands. Instead of an Akron advertisement and a Can't advertisement appearing in The Times of India--meaning 2 different media and creative agencies, 2 different marketing departments, etc-- there is one team creating awareness around one brand. Massing media spend behind a single brand is much more effective. There is one recruiting office in Hyderabad instead of 2-- one person, instead of 2. Much more efficient.

Could this "compete in neighborhood, cooperate everywhere else" idea be applied in other areas? A joint tech transfer office in Silicon Valley that develops relationships with VCs and tech community to raise the profile the LCI and the polymer expertise. A joint DC office to get defense dept funding.

Just a little Sunday morning brainstorming...

[jupitertoo]

LA,

Assuming a merger makes sense, I think it shouldn't be all about just being as big as possible and shoving as many students through as possible. One thing that I'm a very strong proponent of is a regulated, hierarchical public university system. The great thing about the California system (and a reason why tuition was so reasonable for so long) was that it was strictly regulated. Every school wasn't free go out and embark on a quest to challenge Berkeley. It allowed unnecessary redundancies to be avoided and resources to be allocated more effectively. Competition is not always a good thing when it is internal, whether within a corporation, a government or a university system. Often, it leads to gross inefficiencies as individual units lose sight of the big picture and pursue their own narrow empire building. It seems too as though this is the dominant line of thinking in both political parties in Ohio, so attempting to fight the man on this front would probably not end well.

Now, this leads me to an area that's probably not going to be very popular. Ohio has a flagship campus. That boat sailed in the 1870s, was written into law by the Ohio legislature in 1906 and confirmed by outside sources in 1916 with OSU's election into the AAU (ahead of such universities as Northwestern, Texas, North Carolina, Washington, Duke and Vanderbilt). It's not going to change. Ohio is not California. It doesn't need--nor can afford--a Berkeley AND a UCLA. To make a comparison, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois would need to be a single state with a Chicago at each end for that comparison to be apt. What I would want to see from Akron (and perhaps the merged college) with the "Polytechnic" designation is a long term strategic plan as to what its role in a structured, rational Ohio public university system should be. This too is what the state wants to see, and it seems to be one of the few truly bipartisan issues that's transcended recent Democratic and Republican Governors. Personally, I think OU is the most pathetic university in America. Their entire sense of identity and self-worth and outlook is based on looking in the mirror and not seeing OSU reflected back at them. They are obsessed as an institution with the notion that they are just around the corner from this great historic wrong being righted, 150 years of Ohio higher education policy being undone and their imminent ascension to their rightful seat on the Iron Throne at hand. And quite frankly, it has stifled them as an institution. They are so wrapped up in not being OSU that they never give any honest thought as to what they could realistically be. All the while, they haven't even noticed UC passing them by in every quality metric: research, endowment, faculty stature, undergraduate selectivity. Despite it's history and name, I think there were very solid reasons that OU was not on the right side of that napkin. OU is on a glide path into the side of the mountain, and they can't even be bothered from taking their dicks out of their hands to look outside the cockpit to notice their impending doom. For all of UA's considerable challenges, I wouldn't trade places with OU for anything.

So, in my eyes, the issue is that chasing the co-flagship dream is illusory and ultimately self-defeating, and quite frankly. UC and NEOU would compete against each other while OSU sails above the fray with that endowment, AAU membership, statewide cultural and economic reach, Big Ten sports and most favored son status with the state in any event. So what would the long term strategic plan for Ohio Tech (possibly merged w Can't and CSU) be? IMO:

• A merged campus should slim down to around 50K undergraduates.
• Spin off at least half of Can't's ridiculously too large branch campus system into independent community colleges.
• Raise admissions standards to the UC level while realizing that the next level (OSU/Big Ten/Miami) is out of reach and pursuing it (see OU's futility) is both not going to be successful while taking attention away from achievable goals. Use what's left of Can't's branch system as a place for kids who don't make the first cut to spend a year or two before transferring. You can't attract the faculty who attract the research and grad students if you're an open admissions university.
• Focus on the "outcomes" that are important to the state right now--graduation rates, retention and debt load. UA has not done this well and is being penalized under the current funding system for it.
• Keep YSU out of the merger to act as the open admission university for NEO.
• Consolidate graduate and research programs into core competencies--again realizing that we can be either a very good focused university or a mediocre OSU clone. That's going to mean eliminating some Ph.D programs and probably the Akron law school.
• Above all, study the recent history of UC and OU because there is a stark contrast between the school that's done it correctly and the school that does nothing but look in the mirror and get angry and bitter.

Wow, must have been denied admission to Ohio University? I think the rancor from other schools re Akron's proposal is due simply to the fact that a member of the Akron board decided to take a shot at other schools that are FAR outperforming his school on virtually every basis: OU has set enrollment records in five of the past six years. They have received more than 22K applications for 4,900 freshman spots for the upcoming fall term, setting a record for the third straight year. Endowment, while a fraction of that of UC, is more than twice that of Akron and is growing at a far faster rate. Incoming freshman scores are the highest ever. The school just established a medical campus in Columbus via a $100 million gift. Its regional campuses are all very strong. The school has successfully differentiated itself from other state universities and has finally left the shadow of OSU. Ask any high school counselor and they will tell you that OU is one of the hottest schools in the state from an interest and engagement standpoint. So why wasn't OU on the "right" side of the board member's napkin? First of all, as an employee of UA, I believe this board has done a pathetic job over the past 15 years in terms of building our brand. Yes, we needed a campus refresh, but the academic profile has suffered mightily in all but a few departments/majors. So the thoughts of a given board member don't carry a great deal of weight. Secondly, his list is based on competitive issues; he knows Akron will never rank with Miami U, nor have the scale of an OSU or UC. He sees OU, Can't, BGSU and Toledo as his real "competition" therefore, and he sure wasn't going to admit that they are doing something right. OU has never been stronger; moreover, with a beautiful campus, many strong programs and a history that no other state school can match, it will be fine over the long term. It would be best if Akron's board and president focused on its own challenges rather than throwing stones at other, better performing schools. And it seems as though many of you agree with the severity of the issues in Buchtel hall; hell, more than a few are already dreaming of merging with other NE Ohio universities!

[K92]

I guess UA is not the only institution rebranding. This graphic was leaked from the OU board's latest executive session:

[Dave in Green]

This is a great discussion because there's a lot of mutual respect being shown for the opinions of others and there is more focus on making points than scoring points. Addressing some of the points made in previous posts, if there's one thing I think we all agree on it's that words and marketing alone will not dramatically transform UA. The plan to make UA live up to the brand is the most important part of the equation, and I hope more details will continue to come out in the coming months.

As for Dr. Scarborough's Cleveland address, it was obviously modified to specifically address issues that had been made public prematurely. In fact we don't know exactly how his address would have been worded if there weren't already public protests about what people thought was happening. Ideally it would have been the opening round of a slow rollout that would have begun educating the public about UA's future direction without getting them all stirred up about a possible name change that may or may not have happened sometime in the future.

And, yes, the public outcry started right here on ZipsNation with this post made by a forum member who had previously identified himself as a longtime UA faculty member. His exact purpose in making this isn't totally clear as he has elected not to participate in the discussion since dropping the bomb. But the conversation it started was picked up by the media, with cleveland.com even quoting directly from the ZipsNation discussion. If the OP's intent was to stir up public opposition by revealing just one tiny element of a grander plan, it was certainly a successful strategy.

[zip-O-matic]

The problem with OU partisans is that they blindly listen to that cheap grifter that you hired as a President and take his word for everything. The man is an utter genius at telling his audience the things they desperately want to hear, but his actual performance is hollow and empty. I don't care how many kids are applying to OU as a backup school, they're not driving any quality improvements. Its freshman class quality has been completely stagnant. Now, I'm going to do something that McDavis doesn't and actually show you the facts. Here is your freshman class profile for last year and five years ago. And I'll compare it with some other schools around the state.

OU

Middle 50% on SAT 2009: 970-1200

2014: 980-1200

On the ACT 2009: 21-26

2014: 22-26

Percent Scoring 30+ 2009: 8%

2014: 7%

Percent Scoring <24 2009: 52%

2014: 48%

Percent in Top Tenth of HS Class 2009: 16%

2014: 15%

Tell me, does that look like a university on the move? One that's "getting out from under the shadow" of OSU or Miami and closing the gap? Or does it look like a university that is completely stagnant. And how are you going to compete for top students when OU has an endowment per student half the size of Miami or UC and barely a quarter that of OSU?

Here are some comparisons with UA and other schools in Ohio. At the top of the class, OU is NO better than UA despite the averages being dragged down by UA still being largely open admissions. How pathetic that OU with its 200 year history and delusions of grandeur can't even attract more 30+ ACT students than poor little open admissions Akron. UC has clearly passed you by at both the top and bottom of the freshman class profile, while OSU and Miami are playing an entirely different ballgame than OU. Think about this for a moment: OSU's 25th percentile ACT score is higher than OU's 75th percentile score. Would you care to tell me how OU is the hottest college in the state and is out of OSU's shadow again please.

Middle 50% on SAT

OU 980-1200

UA 900-1200

UC 1040-1290

Miami 1120-1330

OSU 1160-1390

Middle 50% on ACT

OU 22-26

UA 19-26

UC 23-28

Miami 25-30

OSU 27-31

Percent Scoring 30+ on ACT

OU 7%

UA 7%

UC 15%

Miami 28%

OSU 41%

Percent Scoring <24 on ACT

OU 48%

UA 61%

UC 31%

Miami 8%

OSU 5%

Top Tenth of HS Class

OU 15%

UA 16%

UC 20%

Miami 34%

OSU 61%

Top Quarter of HS Class

OU 43%

UA 38%

UC 48%

Miami 68%

OSU 94%

Bottom Half of HS Class

OU 18%

UA 46%

UC 19%

Miami 7%

OSU 1%

Where else do you want to go with this? Research funding? National Academy members on faculty? Ranking of Departments/Doctoral Programs? I can do this all day. Everything points in one direction: that OU is no different than Akron or Can't or Toledo. I hate to break it to you, but OU absolutely deserved to be in the left column of that napkin. OSU and Miami don't view you as a competitor in any sense, and UC doesn't for anything but undergraduate students, which is rapidly changing as they pass you by. Quite frankly, I'd rather see UA admit that it has problems, challenges and areas where it has underperformed and attempt to do something about it than live in the deluded fantasy world that OU occupies inside its own head. BTW, don't look now but I think your Prez just gave his wife another raise.

OU 2009

OU 2014

UA 2014

UC 2014

MU 2014

OSU 2014

[a-zip]

zip-O……you just brought up something I have never completely understood………open admissions.

How many other schools in Ohio have this? Why do we have this (I assume it is mandated by the state?). Is it a good thing? If we continue with open admissions, how could we ever be viewed as a "competitive" "selective" school. I have to assume this kills our freshman class profile, graduations rates, etc.

[LZIp]

zip-O……you just brought up something I have never completely understood………open admissions.

How many other schools in Ohio have this? Why do we have this (I assume it is mandated by the state?). Is it a good thing? If we continue with open admissions, how could we ever be viewed as a "competitive" "selective" school. I have to assume this kills our freshman class profile, graduations rates, etc.

I'm pretty sure we are no longer open admissions as of approximately 1-2 years ago.

[zip-O-matic]

zip-O……you just brought up something I have never completely understood………open admissions.

How many other schools in Ohio have this? Why do we have this (I assume it is mandated by the state?). Is it a good thing? If we continue with open admissions, how could we ever be viewed as a "competitive" "selective" school. I have to assume this kills our freshman class profile, graduations rates, etc.

I think you're absolutely right. Despite all the good things that LA has brought up, I differ with him on the notion of quality vs. quantity, and I don't think they need be mutually exclusive. Until the 1980s, all the public universities in Ohio were legally open admissions. Ohio State had planned to move to more stringent admissions in the late 50s and early 60s when most of the other Big Ten schools were doing likewise. They, however, were stymied by Jim Rhodes who had a very populist approach to higher ed and felt that every kid in the state should be able to attend any college in the state. Even Miami was technically open admissions, but they worked their way around it by not building enough dorm space to accommodate the baby boom enrollment bubble, and since their former President was Chairman of the Board of Regents in the 60s and 70s, they were allowed to get away with this. This story that they were somehow mandated to be the system's "honor campus" is an absolute myth that they attempt to instill in "History of Miami" classes in Oxford. It's complete b.s., and there's not a single record of either the state legislature, the Governor's office or the Board of Regents ever giving them such a designation. They simply had one of their own in a position of power for nearly twenty years, and he went out of his way to tilt the scales in their favor over the rest of the system.

When Celeste came into office, Ohio State lobbied hard--and with everything they had--to change this. A couple of key things they presented were both the cost of remedial education for kids who should be going to branch campuses or community colleges. And they also showed that--despite Miami being able to present itself as selective--Ohio was still losing huge numbers of high ability students to public universities in other states. Another issue they showed was that the students they flunked out (upwards of 25% of their freshman classes in the 70s) were far less likely to ever graduate in comparison to similar students who went to non-research universities. In essence, you had thousands of unprepared kids who headed to Columbus because of "Buckeyes" that ended up flunking out and never getting any degree. They also argued that they had a hard time replacing retiring faculty with younger faculty of equal stature which was causing Ohio to lose out on research dollars--and that was a role Miami was never going to make up for. So, in the mid 80s, Ohio State ended Miami's monopoly on selective admissions that they had gained in the 60s and 70s and pretty much has left them in the dust. I know the Ohio State hate runs strong on this board, but anyone has to take a little guilty pleasure in watching smug Miami of Ohio being relegated to OSU's backup school. In any event, several other public universities followed OSU's lead in the 90s and began tightening up their admissions to varying degrees of success. Akron hasn't done so which is why, despite being OU's equal at the top third of the freshman class, there's still a big gap at the bottom. OU is clearly not doing a better job than UA at attracting high ability students; they just are allowed to not accept low achieving students.

I brought up the California system because something similar is what I think would work well for Ohio. You'd have essentially a pyramid with (yes, I know) OSU at the top as the flagship AAU member school, then two major, selective research universities serving the other two major metropolitan areas (UC and NEOU), and finally a collection of moderately selective schools with limited graduate programs some residential and some commuter oriented (OU, UT, BG, YSU, Wright State). At the bottom, you'd have the community colleges and branch campuses (which is why getting Can't's branch campus network would be important to UA). Miami is kind of an outlier since they don't really fit into any structured role. They are not going to accept being put at the OU-BG level, but they have ZERO chance of ever turning themselves into a productive research university. I'd guess that they sit in Oxford and continue to do what they've always done.

Accounting for population scale, it would relate something like this.

University of California Equivalents

Ohio State-->Berkeley

UC & NEOU-->Cal Davis & Cal Irvine

Miami-->Cal Santa Cruz (the most undergrad focused UC campus)

Cal State Equivalents

OU, BG, UT, Wright State, Shawnee State, YSU, Cleveland State, Central State

Community College Equivalents

Ohio CC's and branch campuses

That would give Ohio a truly rational, structured and efficient university system.

[K92]

Everything points in one direction: that OU is no different than Akron or Can't or Toledo.

This graphic might suggest one way Athens County may differ from Summit, Portage and Lucas Counties, though.

[a-zip]

Looking up our open admissions policy….this is all I can find

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2012/03/university_of_akron_to_steer_s.html

http://www.collegecalc.org/colleges/ohio/open-admissions/

[a-zip]

Niche says we are not open admissions but says the acceptance rate is 97%!!

https://colleges.niche.com/university-of-akron/statistics/