UA rebranding

[LosAngelesZipFan]

Skip-- I think the window of opportunity for us to emerge organically as the "U Cincy of the north" has effectively closed unless there is a massively effective donation push that happens-- like hundreds of millions of incremental funding.

It is a historical anomaly to have two large state U's 12 miles apart. Never made sense in the first place. It has kept either Akron or Can't from getting bigger and/or better. Athletically, when we made the decision to go into the MAC ('92?), we essentially gave up any dream of becoming dominant, at least athletically.

So, we can shake our fists at the sky and try to hold on to something that will change-- has to change-- or we can try to make the best of it. I would rather be connected to something vibrant and emerging than irrelevant and waning. I'll root for the Zips in whatever form they exist-- and then will root for whatever has come next. A NEO U would make all the sense in the world-- and it could be a big 10 caliber school, athletically and academically. Let the Akron and Can't campuses continue to compete...intramurally. But let this new, world class organization compete with the OSU's of the world.

Something has to happen to shake things up...current state is not sustainable... the cool part would be this kind of bold action might actually stir enough interest to re-direct some of the OSU obsession to this new institution.

[Dave in Green]

Skip, if you read the portion of the statement below that Dr. Scarborough released earlier this week, the part I bolded indicates that he has no intention of diminishing the arts and humanities at UA:

... The most well known polytechnic universities (Georgia Tech, Texas Tech, Virginia Tech, etc.) are defined by their career-focused, rigorous academic programs in the sciences, arts and humanities; emphasis on critical thinking and complex problem solving; applied and experiential learning; and deep connections to industry and community. We already have many polytechnic programs, approaches and strengths at UA that distinguish us and add tremendous value to a UA degree. ...

[skip-zip]

Dave, I don't want to attack you here, but do you think that within the context of what he is doing here, that he would say that he DOES intend to diminish the Arts and Humanities?

But the reason I brought it up is because I think that those who will never understand the terminology, and all of it's meaning, will perceive us as a Tech School, and perception is reality for most people.

[Dave in Green]

Skip, I don't consider it an attack when someone disagrees with me. IMHO Dr. Scarborough was simply giving a commonly used set of characteristics applicable to most polytechnic universities. University of Wisconsin-Stout, Wisconsin's Polytechnic University, uses a similar description, part of which is shown below:

Definition of a 21st Century Polytechnic University

Polytechnics are comprehensive universities offering professional, career-focused programs in the arts, social and related behavioral sciences, engineering, education, and natural sciences and technology that engage students in active, applied learning, theory and research essential to the future of society, business and industry.

UW-Stout is seeking official designation as Wisconsin’s polytechnic university. This will convey a distinct brand for UW-Stout, providing a clear difference from other state universities and the basis for a marketing effort in a time of increasing competition from both private and public institutions. The characteristics that define the 100 or more American polytechnic universities mirror those of this institution and how it has evolved over the past century. UW-Stout is a fine university, one that has focused sharply on its select mission, served its constituents extremely well and is now positioned to move to an even higher level of excellence.

It is important to note that there is no single definition of a polytechnic university, although all share characteristics. UW-Stout will develop the concept around its historic mission of balancing access and excellence, providing educational opportunities for all ethnic groups and social classes that demonstrate the ability and desire to succeed. Yet, the university will continue to offer high-quality, challenging programs.

[K92]

I've changed my mind. If we can transform this lousy old university into a polytechnic, we should. Immediately. Since I read Dave's last post I can't help but fantasize about the day that the institution formerly known as The University of Akron might be mentioned in the same breath as the prestigious UW-Stout!

[LZIp]

I've changed my mind. If we can transform this lousy old university into a polytechnic, we should. Immediately. Since I read Dave's last post I can't help but fantasize about the day that the institution formerly known as The University of Akron might be mentioned in the same breath as the prestigious UW-Stout!

I was thinking the same thing. We should strive to be as well known as UW-Stout and Florida Polytech. Clearly has worked out well for them!

I'm still waiting for an answer on what this "survival" mode is supposed to mean. Is UA going to cease to exist if there isn't some drastic change?

[LosAngelesZipFan]

It's really just a silly exercise in tag lines at this point... and as the UW Stout example indicates, it is not a "big idea". Even if this is basically a "oh shit, I got caught on what I really wanted to do (re-name) and am now offering up as a "re-brand" moment, it points out a few important things:

1) Scarborough has clearly been told in no uncertain terms that the current model for Akron, Can't, BG, Toledo, etc. etc is unsustainable and undesirable from a state perspective...meaning, change will happen either by choice or by fiat from Columbus.

2) UA is in a really bad position in this overall argument with poor brand recognition despite having the only top ranked program (polymer) in the state.

3) UA and Can't basically split the natural "power base" that would nurture a single university in the area-- and if both try to argue to maintain status quo, they will both end up being absorbed into or by something else.

4) Akron is in danger of essentially losing its one truly differentiating asset-- if UA gets absorbed into something else, with its executive core someplace else, Akron will no longer be home to a major university, but rather home to a branch campus of some other university. This should become an immediate and potent rallying cry for what is still a significant business center. The blocker? That Can't is here as well. The answer-- combine or at least confederate the 2 schools and turn this into a truly community-wide rallying cry to support these institutions.

5) NEO needs a major, comprehensive, world-class university. None of the current ones are that on their own, but together could become one. A combined UA and Can't would have 72,000 students, larger than OSU and second in the country only to Arizona State! In one instant, this new U would be in the national conversation. If you later added CSU and YSU (I would recommend establishing the core first so it was in our control), the new U would have around 105,000 students. If you did this and did it emphasizing innovation, inclusion, and quality outcomes (defined as getting through school with as low a debt as possible and getting a good job as well as driving regional economic vitality), it would be an amazing story.

The whole polytechnic thing is veeerrry small ball, akin to futzing with the logo. it's only meaningful if it is just the beginning of a more aggressive program to drive the future, not be driven by it.

[ZachTheZip]

It's really just a silly exercise in tag lines at this point... and as the UW Stout example indicates, it is not a "big idea". Even if this is basically a "oh shit, I got caught on what I really wanted to do (re-name) and am now offering up as a "re-brand" moment, it points out a few important things:

1) Scarborough has clearly been told in no uncertain terms that the current model for Akron, Can't, BG, Toledo, etc. etc is unsustainable and undesirable from a state perspective...meaning, change will happen either by choice or by fiat from Columbus.

2) UA is in a really bad position in this overall argument with poor brand recognition despite having the only top ranked program (polymer) in the state.

3) UA and Can't basically split the natural "power base" that would nurture a single university in the area-- and if both try to argue to maintain status quo, they will both end up being absorbed into or by something else.

4) Akron is in danger of essentially losing its one truly differentiating asset-- if UA gets absorbed into something else, with its executive core someplace else, Akron will no longer be home to a major university, but rather home to a branch campus of some other university. This should become an immediate and potent rallying cry for what is still a significant business center. The blocker? That Can't is here as well. The answer-- combine or at least confederate the 2 schools and turn this into a truly community-wide rallying cry to support these institutions.

5) NEO needs a major, comprehensive, world-class university. None of the current ones are that on their own, but together could become one. A combined UA and Can't would have 72,000 students, larger than OSU and second in the country only to Arizona State! In one instant, this new U would be in the national conversation. If you later added CSU and YSU (I would recommend establishing the core first so it was in our control), the new U would have around 105,000 students. If you did this and did it emphasizing innovation, inclusion, and quality outcomes (defined as getting through school with as low a debt as possible and getting a good job as well as driving regional economic vitality), it would be an amazing story.

The whole polytechnic thing is veeerrry small ball, akin to futzing with the logo. it's only meaningful if it is just the beginning of a more aggressive program to drive the future, not be driven by it.

if done correctly, you could even keep the sports teams separate, if you so desired, by calling it a "system" with multiple campuses like the U of California system. A system doesn't need to encompass every state university in a given state, and you can have mutiple, competing systems.

[ROCK1]

Of course there are also the multitude of higher education "experts" that say college education is too expensive to sustain itself, and that within 15 years many schools will cease to exist, mostly replaced by free internet education.

[LZIp]

It's really just a silly exercise in tag lines at this point... and as the UW Stout example indicates, it is not a "big idea". Even if this is basically a "oh shit, I got caught on what I really wanted to do (re-name) and am now offering up as a "re-brand" moment, it points out a few important things:

1) Scarborough has clearly been told in no uncertain terms that the current model for Akron, Can't, BG, Toledo, etc. etc is unsustainable and undesirable from a state perspective...meaning, change will happen either by choice or by fiat from Columbus.

2) UA is in a really bad position in this overall argument with poor brand recognition despite having the only top ranked program (polymer) in the state.

3) UA and Can't basically split the natural "power base" that would nurture a single university in the area-- and if both try to argue to maintain status quo, they will both end up being absorbed into or by something else.

4) Akron is in danger of essentially losing its one truly differentiating asset-- if UA gets absorbed into something else, with its executive core someplace else, Akron will no longer be home to a major university, but rather home to a branch campus of some other university. This should become an immediate and potent rallying cry for what is still a significant business center. The blocker? That Can't is here as well. The answer-- combine or at least confederate the 2 schools and turn this into a truly community-wide rallying cry to support these institutions.

5) NEO needs a major, comprehensive, world-class university. None of the current ones are that on their own, but together could become one. A combined UA and Can't would have 72,000 students, larger than OSU and second in the country only to Arizona State! In one instant, this new U would be in the national conversation. If you later added CSU and YSU (I would recommend establishing the core first so it was in our control), the new U would have around 105,000 students. If you did this and did it emphasizing innovation, inclusion, and quality outcomes (defined as getting through school with as low a debt as possible and getting a good job as well as driving regional economic vitality), it would be an amazing story.

The whole polytechnic thing is veeerrry small ball, akin to futzing with the logo. it's only meaningful if it is just the beginning of a more aggressive program to drive the future, not be driven by it.

Interesting thoughts LA. I'm going to need you do get more specific though.

1) I'm calling BS. But if there is some substance behind it, What is making the Toledo's, OU's, and Akron's unsustainable and undesirable all of the sudden? What is the "change" that will happen?

2) Do you mean UA's position against whatever changes? Or are you including Scarborough's position as UA's position? If its the latter, yes our Polymer is not only tops in the state, but also in the nation (or close to it). Our Engineering programs are pretty great in general. However, UA has a lot of great programs. Nursing and Education are ones I believe. The business school overall is top 100 in the nation, with many of the programs within it top 100 as well. A couple current notable alums just in accounting off of the top of my head are Lt. Governor Mary Taylor and Brad Dickerson (Under Armour CFO). I believe UA was the first Ohio school to implement as Master's of Tax program. You can look now and see that most other Universities in the state have followed suit. The Law school isn't held in high regard nationally I don't believe, but what I do know is Akron students continuously rank #1 in the state in passing the BAR for first time testers.

3) Present state, it is kind of unfortunate that Can't and Akron have to split the regional power base. What or who do you think they will end up being absorbed by if the status quo is maintained?

4 and 5) You point out that you don't want the university to be some satellite campus, but then you go on to say all of the NEO universities need to somehow merge, which will, in essence, make UA into a satellite campus. You mention Can't and Akron somehow combining. How is that going to work? One sports team? A whole new name? Are two separate campus' really cost effective? Have you ever seen what happens when two rival high schools have to consolidate? Its a mess. There are so many conflicting interests along with agendas, not to mention a ton of money involved, I don't see how its plausible at a mega-state university level. What does is the benefit of merging anyways? There seems to be very little opportunity to cut expenses from this (administration seems to be about it assuming you're going to want to keep two separate sports programs), and a ton of expenses in rebranding. I would have to imagine alumni donations would take a huge hit as well. Why would I donate to a school that I have no connection to?

if done correctly, you could even keep the sports teams separate, if you so desired, by calling it a "system" with multiple campuses like the U of California system. A system doesn't need to encompass every state university in a given state, and you can have mutiple, competing systems.

New York does it as well. What is the benefit of this system? If it is so good, why are so few states doing it? California isn't a state I'd want to follow when it comes to the topic of fiscal responsibility or "branding" schools for that matter. For every UC- school you have heard of, there is at least one you haven't heard of. Akron is a lot more recognizable UC-Riverside on a national stage.

Not to mention, CA has the Cal State- system as well. Which most have probably very little familiarity with any of them.

[ZachTheZip]

New York does it as well. What is the benefit of this system? If it is so good, why are so few states doing it?

New York does it one way, but that's not the way I'm referencing.

I'm talking modeling things after the University of California system or the University of North Carolina system. They're not the only state universities in their respective states. NEO University would have at least NEO Akron, NEO Can't, NEO Youngstown, NEO Cleveland, and NEO Stark. Five separate main campuses with specilizations, and branch campuses all over. All under the same leadership. It would dominate state higher education, and most importantly it creates a brand that instantly identifies everyone involved as being a part of something. It's much easier to promote the system as a whole, nationally. You can promote every involved university's strengths as your own, and discard weaknesses that other campuses do better.

[ZachTheZip]

Does everybody remember this article?

Jim Tressel, Scott Scarborough and Beverly Warren all became presidents of public universities in northeastern Ohio last summer — and almost immediately began discussing ways for their schools to consolidate operations.

Although an outright merger of Youngstown State, the University of Akron and Can't State University has not been discussed, almost everything else is on the table, Scarborough, president of the University of Akron, said yesterday.

That could include combining or coordinating information-technology departments, treasury services, purchasing, academic programs, research facilities and other operations, he said.

“We’re being pushed and encouraged by everyone in Columbus,” Scarborough said. “There are a lot of those conversations going on.”

However, in 2008, former Board of Regents Chancellor Eric Fingerhut proposed merging the University of Akron and Cleveland State University, saying competition among public universities in the same region must end.

Fingerhut eventually abandoned the plan, but he warned universities to collaborate and not “continue to squabble and seek advantage one over the other.”

“Those ideas have been out there for a long time, since before I became president of the University of Akron,” Scarborough said.

Higher-education institutions in northeastern Ohio already have various partnerships, Scarborough said. The question going forward has been “what other partnerships make sense?” he said. “And everyone is kind of committed to entertaining additional proposals.”

[Dave in Green]

Dr. Scarborough's paid job is to study all the available options for UA's future and make the best choice based on his own personal knowledge and experience combined with all the input he can get from all of the university's various constituencies. He's completed his due diligence and, with the blessings of the UA Board of Trustees, elected to take the polytechnic option as the best hope for UA's future within the constraints of Ohio's public university ecosystem. Maybe he's right and maybe he's wrong. But his odds for success are much higher than for anyone who hasn't done due diligence and is just basing their opinion on general feelings.

[LZIp]

New York does it one way, but that's not the way I'm referencing.

I'm talking modeling things after the University of California system or the University of North Carolina system. They're not the only state universities in their respective states. NEO University would have at least NEO Akron, NEO Can't, NEO Youngstown, NEO Cleveland, and NEO Stark. Five separate main campuses with specilizations, and branch campuses all over. All under the same leadership. It would dominate state higher education, and most importantly it creates a brand that instantly identifies everyone involved as being a part of something. It's much easier to promote the system as a whole, nationally. You can promote every involved university's strengths as your own, and discard weaknesses that other campuses do better.

I see where you're coming from now, and its an interesting concept, but I'm still failing to see anywhere near the same amount of pros than cons. You know what NC and CA have in their systems? Flagship schools. Berkley (and UCLA for other reasons) and UNC-Chapel Hill are the only Universities your average person has heard of on a national scale. If we are going to be a flagship university of the NEOU, then I might be able to be talked into it. Under the same leadership sounds nice on the outside, but like I said earlier, there will be many conflicting interests and agendas (See Alabama shutting down UAB football). I sure as hell don't want to turn into some UC-Irvine or UNC-Ashville.I bet UNC Pembroke is loving their national brand recognition from being apart of the NC system. These schools and employers don't consider them all equal or the same thing. They are direct competitors with each other in attracting students as well as athletics. Is there a substantial increase in state funding for each member of this system? I've yet to see the real benefit of it pointed out.

Specializations in locations is interesting and would be a first time as far as I know. Say Akron becomes the "engineering" campus. My son wants to be an Akron Zip just like his dad, but they don't offer his major. So does that mean he has to revert to the armpit of Ohio (better known as Youngstown) to get his degree in international business? Seems like forcing people to attend one school over another because of a very limited major offering is a great way to build a fan base/alumni donors.

I'm actually SHOCKED at how many people on here seem to be open to something like this when 1) Akron has made great strides under Proenza (you're already missed) and still has plenty of momentum going, 2) I have yet to see what the mythical issue is that shows this is needed (nobody seems to know), and 3) I have yet to see a convincing argument on why this should happen. Sorry Dave, I'm not going to revert to the BS cop out that "Dr. Scarborough has done his due diligence (we have no clue what he has done) and I'm going to blindly trust whatever he wants when I have no clue what his motives are." I suppose Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Lehman Bros should have been trusted before the financial crisis because they are paid to do it.

Not everybody makes decisions with good faith.

As a somewhat recent graduate with a common degree and with many friends who are recent graduates, I've got news for you all. Akron is a well respected institution in the state and the midwest. I work with people who attended Indiana, OSU, Mich St, and Miami (OH). My firm recruits at Akron (even Can't St) just like they do at all of those previously named institutions. You know who isn't respected statewide? Youngstown State and Cleveland State. They're viewed as nothing more than glorified community colleges. We shouldn't strive to partner with them. If anything, they need us, not the other way around. Trading away your identity for a marginal at best increase in a very narrow scope of academics (seems to be the only pro) doesn't make sense at all to me.

#ThinkSmaller

[Balsy]

Dr. Scarborough's paid job is to study all the available options for UA's future and make the best choice based on his own personal knowledge and experience combined with all the input he can get from all of the university's various constituencies. He's completed his due diligence and, with the blessings of the UA Board of Trustees, elected to take the polytechnic option as the best hope for UA's future within the constraints of Ohio's public university ecosystem. Maybe he's right and maybe he's wrong. But his odds for success are much higher than for anyone who hasn't done due diligence and is just basing their opinion on general feelings.

I don't agree that due diligence has been done. Due dilligence would be conducting this discussion in an open and transparent manner. Due dilligence would be emercing yourself into the Culture of your new unversity (which he has not done) meeting with students (of all groups, walks and diciplines). Due dilligence would include getting to know your university's history, it's ups...it's downs...as well as the possible future options available.

Dr. Scarborough has done his due dilligence? More like cherry-picked the bits he needed to fulfill his goal.

Dr. Scarborough was invited (before ANY of this stuff was taking place) to visit the various meetings of student groups on campus. Proenza did it. Muse, Zook, Reubel did it. Scarborough did not attend a single one he was invited to. From graduate students, to volunteer community outreach groups. I have that on good multiple sources.

[ZZZips]

I don't agree that due diligence has been done. Due dilligence would be conducting this discussion in an open and transparent manner. Due dilligence would be emercing yourself into the Culture of your new unversity (which he has not done) meeting with students (of all groups, walks and diciplines). Due dilligence would include getting to know your university's history, it's ups...it's downs...as well as the possible future options available.

Dr. Scarborough has done his due dilligence? More like cherry-picked the bits he needed to fulfill his goal.

Dr. Scarborough was invited (before ANY of this stuff was taking place) to visit the various meetings of student groups on campus. Proenza did it. Muse, Zook, Reubel did it. Scarborough did not attend a single one he was invited to. From graduate students, to volunteer community outreach groups. I have that on good multiple sources.

I disagree. Real leaders don't need to eat in the employee cafeteria every day to know their competition, their organization fiscal strengths and weaknesses and their customer's needs. How many employees are going to stand up in a meeting and say their part of the organization sucks and should be a prime target for elimination? Finding the poor performing parts of an organization can be accomplished without the "feel good" or "listening tour" meetings. The strengths of UA that need to be further enhanced are evident to most of us.

[ZippyRulz]

Dr. Scarborough mentioned Florida Polytechnic University as an example. Looking a little closer at that model, it appears that the state of Florida legislated it into existence with Governor Rick Scott's enthusiastic blessing. Governor John Kasich and the Ohio Legislature have many similarities with their Florida counterparts in terms of putting higher education under a magnifying glass and implementing fundamental changes such as creating a public polytechnic university. Just looking at the first few paragraphs in the Wikipedia entry on FPU brings up a few interesting points that I've bolded below:

The Florida Poly example scares me because they are STEM-only. VT on the other hand is much more comprehensive:

http://www.admiss.vt.edu/available-majors/

I don't think Va. Tech liberal arts majors suffer from having gone to a "tech" school because the overall quality and brand is very good and I would have no problem with emulating them. Can the non-tech majors be made more career-oriented? Probably. But distinguishing our brand ultimately comes down to money...upgrading faculty and educational resources drives the quality of students, available programming, research & IP, etc.

[Balsy]

I disagree. Real leaders don't need to eat in the employee cafeteria every day to know their competition, their organization fiscal strengths and weaknesses and their customer's needs. How many employees are going to stand up in a meeting and say their part of the organization sucks and should be a prime target for elimination? Finding the poor performing parts of an organization can be accomplished without the "feel good" or "listening tour" meetings. The strengths of UA that need to be further enhanced are evident to most of us.

You don't cut off your left arm to make your right arm stronger. But that's not the point I was making at all.

I was saying that he and his administration have shown a disregard for the UA community, regardless of the "repositioning" of the university, he has made zero effort to be engaged with students, faculty and staff. That is NOT a leader, certainly not a university leader. No you don't need to eat in the employee cafeteria, or even the student one. But when your students invite you to their meetings when you first become president, you should make every effort to attend as many as possible. Even if you don't give a rats-ass about some of them...those are your students; the reason you are there.

This is the biggest thing UA has always suffered from my observations; there is a disconnect from those running UA and the students. You're in the student business, you should probably be heavily engaged with them. Period. Those three universities, labeled "safe branding", have a relationship with their student body that is about 100x better than UA's. Because they treat their students like they matter. They treat their alumni like they matter. They engage their students and their alumni as if they matter. THAT's being a leader.

[skip-zip]

I think new "leaders" often make the mistake of moving on new ideas without sufficient information. This may have been the case here. I think he at least had an obligation to get some kind of "pulse" of what the reaction would be from students and alums before he ventured into these waters. The students are your tuition payers, and the alums are your donors. These are your customers in this line of work. You have to know your customers.

We all have seen this, and complained about it many times in regards to our athletic administration making changes to parking priority, etc. The same thing should apply here. It's a frequent mistake made by people who enter a new environment in a decision-making position without learning enough about the culture of the entity that they are attempting to change.

[ROCK1]

1. Regarding a previous post, Akron's law school pass rate was fifth in Ohio (July 2014).

2. It seems like much of the talk on the state level is about duplicate programs. Does every school in the state need a College of Education or Fine Arts? Maybe Akron has Engineering and Can't has Education for example.

[LZIp]

1. Regarding a previous post, Akron's law school pass rate was fifth in Ohio (July 2014).

2. It seems like much of the talk on the state level is about duplicate programs. Does every school in the state need a College of Education or Fine Arts? Maybe Akron has Engineering and Can't has Education for example.

This is what I was referencing (first time test takers rate). http://www.uakron.edu/law/admissions/information/bar.dot

For the record, I'm all for cutting out some programs that have shown to have very little to no value in the workplace. Kids are told they can go to school and be anything they want, but that just isn't the case anymore. There is only so much you can do with a Fashion Merchandising degree, especially in Ohio, so don't be shocked if you have to take a job at Starbucks upon graduation. If my memory is correct, some of this has actually happened towards the end of Proenza's term.

The U currently offers about 200 undergrad degrees. Seems way over-saturated to me when I look at the list. I'm not a scientist, but I'd be shocked if there anything other than a minimal difference between Earth and Environmental Science. I took both classes in undergrad. Basically the same thing as far as I could tell. I wonder what they employment rate out of college is for our Fashion Merchandising grads? Painting and drawing? Don't even get me started there. Many of the art majors seem a bit redundant.

There is quite a bit of "trimming" that I think can be done. If the state is looking at something like you stated above, I think a good suggestion would be to let major common colleges/common majors within those college be offered by whoever wants to offer. When we're talking about not very common majors such as Polymer Engineering and Fashion Merchandising, it might make more sense to restrict them to the programs in the state that have shown to be strong on a national scale.

[uhgrad2002]

Universities exist for more than just preparing people for the job market. If that is the major goal, then businesses ought to be directly taxed to pay for them. And yes, students (and parents paying the bill) need to go in with their eyes open as to what the costs are and the job market is (if that is why they are there). I believe that an important mission for universities is to provide a place for people to explore and to become well rounded individuals, and I fear that is getting lost as higher education refocuses itself to be a job training service. In the long run, we are going to be hurting ourselves by developing a society so narrowly focused on the job market.

I will be listening to this conversation over UA rebranding, but if it goes the way I think it might, I will move my support to institutions that educate for a broader life experience.

[Balsy]

The U currently offers about 200 undergrad degrees. Seems way over-saturated to me when I look at the list. I'm not a scientist, but I'd be shocked if there anything other than a minimal difference between Earth and Environmental Science. I took both classes in undergrad. Basically the same thing as far as I could tell. I wonder what they employment

I couldn't disagree with you more. There is a substantial difference in the two fields especially degrees in them. Yes the introductory, 100-level classes are nearly identical, because you deal mostly with the basics of those contents.

Earth science is more of a physics based discipline, and primarily looks at the natural process of the planet. Environmental science looks at earth as a system, so you'd call it a system science. Earth Science is more broad. For example: Earth science would be dealing more with mineral formation/location, while Environmental science would focus on specific interactions of minerals in the environment/system. Might seem like minute differences, but it's not something that you just elminate and combine together. They're different disciplines, for different career paths/research paths. And really cutting one, isn't going to "save money". Instead you'd be limiting your opportunities for diversification within your research, which is asinine.

[Balsy]

LibraryMark hit it on the nose. There is a battle going on in education. Education vs work force. Job preparedness vs independent well rounded people.

My parents and I have had many discussions about this. Both of my parents are highly educated with several masters degrees. They both graduated in the 70s, my father in accounting and business, my mother in education and science. Back when they were in school, businesses did not hire them expecting they were ready to go from day one. They hired people, then dedicated resources to train those people in for the job that the business wanted them to do. This takes an INVESTMENT on the employee on the part of the business. My dad was extensively trained by the chemical corporations that hired him, that he ended up spending 20 years with.

Businesses are doing this less and less. Putting the burden (financially and academically) of having a worker to do the job needed, on the education system...instead of finding someone with the base skills and investing in them.

This lack of investment in employees by businesses isn't going unnoticed by the millenials who are now entering the work force. Businesses are having trouble retaining millenials for long periods of time, because millenials don't stay in places that don't value them, or invest in them.

[skip-zip]

Interesting discussion. I have to admit, I have often been faced with the dilemma of having bright, well-educated candidates that lacked the training in college to be instantly productive in the workforce. And honestly, it has frustrated me, and I've pushed the burden back to their educators to change some of the skills they are taught before they start to enter the work force.

On the surface, I think this can be accomplished without depriving someone of their desire to be highly educated and well-rounded as an individual, as part of their college experience.

Maybe I'm asking for too much. I don't know.