UA rebranding

[Balsy]

That is correct, Bill Gates is a billionaire, not an educator. The problem in education isn't teachers, or education...it's the number of people (especially billionaires with no experience in the manner) sticking their hands into it.

Nor is his fluff piece on how online education moves students to the front row actually supported by reality. Attrition in online courses is far worse than traditional classes.

Bill Gates Talks a Big talk, but unfortunately, reality doesn't bend to how much money you have. Entrepreneurs have been claiming revolutions in education for over a hundred years, all of them were incorrect.

Online classes devalue what education actually is. Education is a process, and a system NOT facts and information.

The "Interesting" read I've already addressed, and posted the link to in previous threads. Extraodinary claims require extrodinary evidence. The writer doesn't actually understand education (he often refers to "knowldege" being the purpose of education...it isn't). Transferance of knowledge isn't what education is.

[Balsy]

wut

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/05/university_of_akron_spends_111.html#incart_river

It's so sad. Fund a new lab, or do research that you won't release to the public so it can be verified for it's validity, to change the name to "Ohio's Polytechnique University".

a-zip, if you want to know what the problem in education is. THIS IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF WHAT'S WRONG IN EDUCATION.

[a-zip]

It's so sad. Fund a new lab, or do research that you won't release to the public so it can be verified for it's validity, to change the name to "Ohio's Polytechnique University".

a-zip, if you want to know what the problem in education is. THIS IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF WHAT'S WRONG IN EDUCATION.

So on one hand you criticize and complain decisions are being made without research or information (whims I think you called it). And now you complain because money was spent to research this important strategy? Basically, you just like to complain.

I wouldn't expect TB to divulge his game plan before a game or team disciplinary matters. And I don't feel the U of A should be obligated to provide details of the strategy at this time. Information will come out.

[Balsy]

So on one hand you criticize and complain decisions are being made without research or information (whims I think you called it). And now you complain because money was spent to research this important strategy? Basically, you just like to complain.

No. I'm complaining about decisions that are being made without peer reviewed research, that's open for public debate discussion and criticism.

There's a difference between peer reviewed research, that's open for public debate discussion and criticism...than research conducted by a for profit firm or business. Claims are only as good as the facts that back them up. When you cannot debate, discuss and criticize the methods used in research...than it isn't good research. "Trust me, my numbers are good" isn't good enough for me, sorry.

And spending $100,000 on private, non-transparent, research into a new name is absolutely a gross missuse grant of funds. How about we improve the quality of our education before we consider rebranding with names.

You're damn right I"m going to complain about this. Education is important. It's what universities are supposed to do. Stop wasting money on bullshit. Use that $100,000 grant funds to fund a team of grad students AT YOUR OWN UNIVERSITY to research that question for you.

[Dave in Green]

Sure. Can you explain to me why you were a fan of Tressel during the presidency nomination process and were mostly not a fan of Scarborough, but now all of the sudden (I believe he has had very little time/done little to "prove himself") agree with everything Scaborough seems to be doing yet dismiss Tressel's opinion on the subject?

Once again, lots of erroneous assumptions. While everyone else was focused on Jim Tressel's perceived flaws, some to the point of obsession, I took the time to check the background of the other leading candidate (Dr. Scarborough), who no one here seemed to know a thing about. I reported what I found with links for others to check and draw their own conclusions. That hardly makes me a fan or not a fan of either candidate, both of whom appeared to have strengths and weaknesses in different areas. You've never seen me say as some have on these forums that if my guy doesn't get the office I'm going to stop supporting UA or if the guy in office does something I don't like I'm going to stop supporting UA. Those are characteristics of fanaticism. I'm just a former news reporter who tries to look at every situation from all angles, especially the angles others are ignoring.

I saw Dr. Scarborough's financial background as a major strength but was concerned about his reputation for cost-cutting and privatization. No one else here appeared to be concerned about that at the time. Where you get the idea that I now support everything Dr. Scarborough is doing and dismiss what Jim Tressel has to say is beyond me. Maybe you're just misinterpreting my appreciation for the irony of the protests against Jim Tressel turning into the protests against Dr. Scarborough. Neither one of them was ever going to please all the people all the time. Anyway, all this protesting is taking me on a nostalgia trip back to the '60s.

[Dave in Green]

The root issue with the education system in the United States lies in the US Congress and the State Legislatures. Our representatives have become so engrossed in keeping their jobs that they absolutely do not do their jobs. They have so many special interests and pet projects to bring money to their districts and their largest campaign contributors that they do not look out for the best interests of the country. Education, infrastructure, technological intellectual property are things that drive the economy, yet instead of funding and/or protecting these things, they're passing legislation to give away taxpayers money to whatever special interests and contributors help them maintain their seats. They see defense of the US as sole responsibility of the Defense Department, Homeland Security, law enforcement, intelligence organizations, and other such entities. While those groups have a definite large stake in US defense, the country's security begins with the welfare of its people and economy. If the general standard of living and education are poor and you're giving away your economic leadership, you cannot possibly continue to be secure.

Very astute observation. Public education can't survive without adequate public funding, which is slowly being cut back with encouragement for more privatization. The politicians who are making these decisions are elected officials, so either the majority of voters is in favor of this or voters just aren't paying enough attention to what's going on. Where are the protests in Columbus?

[LZIp]

I saw Dr. Scarborough's financial background as a major strength but was concerned about his reputation for cost-cutting and privatization. No one else here appeared to be concerned about that at the time. Where you get the idea that I now support everything Dr. Scarborough is doing and dismiss what Jim Tressel has to say is beyond me. Maybe you're just misinterpreting my appreciation for the irony of the protests against Jim Tressel turning into the protests against Dr. Scarborough. Neither one of them was ever going to please all the people all the time. Anyway, all this protesting is taking me on a nostalgia trip back to the '60s.

It appears I did misinterpret your initial post that started this and I apologize. In all fairness, your posting style is hard to decipher with how diplomatic it is and you're unwillingness to take strong stances.

[Dave in Green]

It appears I did misinterpret your initial post that started this and I apologize. In all fairness, your posting style is hard to decipher with how diplomatic it is and you're unwillingness to take strong stances.

Yep, my parents named me after a great American diplomat who they admired. I need to be more aware of how easy it is for people to misinterpret some things I say, and I apologize for my part in this misunderstanding. As for not taking strong stances, I actually do on issues where I have good knowledge of the whole situation. I've found over the years that strong stances can be misguided when taken without access to all the facts, especially if they're built on misinterpretations and misunderstandings. Anyway, glad we got this straightened out as I think we're not too far apart on many issues.

Back to Dr. Scarborough, my hope is that his history with cost-cutting and privatization is out of necessity rather than preference. That is, I hope that he's a strong believer in public education who's had to explore more cost-cutting and privatization because the politicians keep reducing the amount of financial support for public higher education. Certainly in his Cleveland speech he came across as a true believer in the importance of public education. But in the absence of adequate public funding he would be remiss if he didn't explore all other options to make up for the shortfall in government support. As more facts come out I reserve the right to become more opinionated on the subject.

[Balsy]

I've found over the years that strong stances can be misguided when taken without access to all the facts, especially if they're built on misinterpretations and misunderstandings. Anyway, glad we got this straightened out as I think we're not too far apart on many issues.

Damn you Dave. You always have a way of calming everything down. But I highlighted the portion of what you said above. The only thing I'd that this is why it's so important to have transparency. If you genuinely include everyone in the conversation, keep an open and fair conversation, these stances that are built on misinterpretations and misunderstandings can be avoided. Everything about this UA Rebranding has not been that, which is the problem. I know a-zip and other members may not agree with this when I say it: I'm actually a pretty open minded person. I just don't apprieciate bullshit. Especially when it comes to something that is as important to me as UA is.

[K92]

Blessed are the cheesemakers. . .

[Dave in Green]

Balsy, agreed on the issue that lack of transparency is a breeding ground for misinterpretation. I'm hearing different views on UA's general transparency under Dr. Scarborough. On the one hand some say he's gone out of his way to meet with various constituencies, seek their input and be open about his planning process. On the other hand some say he hasn't discussed as much with them as they'd like. Realistically a CEO never discusses every issue with every constituency. So I still don't believe I have sufficient data to make a blanket assessment. The single polytechnic issue may be emotional to many, but it doesn't totally define the transparency of the organization.

There are competitive issues in every organization that require some degree of confidentiality. Some believe there shouldn't be competitive issues between fellow public institutions of higher learning. But in fact state legislatures are encouraging competition among public universities by tying funding to each university's performance. That makes competitive edges in performance important for each university to develop, and it appears UA believes the polytechnic thing to be a competitive advantage. Obviously you never get a 100% buy-in on anything. But it does appear that there's a consensus at the higher levels of UA that this is a sound plan to help ensure UA's future. I'm certainly keeping my ears open to learn if there is any dissent about the plan from those who are familiar with all the details.

[Balsy]

Now THIS is the way to go about "rebranding"! (athletics anyways).

[a-zip]

I've said about all I can say, I hate to keep repeating. Everyone has their opinions. My perspective comes from someone who went to UA and grew up and currently lives 7 hours away in the mid-atlantic. I have always resented when people ask me “why did you go to Akron?” I would like to see that change.

The reason I jumped in to this (no, I am not related to Dr. Scarborough and have never met him) is because I hate when people don't have the information they desire they tend to think the worst, develop conspiracies and make things up. I also believe 100% the way higher education has historically been provided is going to change and needs to change because of the fiscal restraints being put on schools. I hope we become a leader in this shift.

In these exchanges comments have been made that "the A-Roo is being eliminated", The University of Akron name is being eliminated....neither of those are true. There have also been attacks on Dr. Scarborough for being a dictator and a person who does not understand higher education or even care. There was even been a comment that he does not want what is best for UA. Comments have been made that no due diligence has been done and there is no transparency or collaboration in the decision making. That is all absurd! If any of the latter were true and he was making uninformed decisions on a “whim” I will be one of the first to call for heads to roll! I guess the only positive thing I can say about a lot of what has been said is, it's good to see there are people that are passionate about UA Sorry, I'm not as diplomatic as Dave, but that kind of crap drives me crazy.

I should have just shut up after Dave said…

“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#”

That pretty much sums up my feelings and I am comfortable with how decisions are being made based on what I have read. I am looking forward to seeing us become an even better university!

I found the assessment report in February 2015 by the HLC (link below) to be very encouraging. It was attended by hundreds to include - the president & his cabinet, Faculty senate committee, University council Steering Committee, AAUP Executive Committee, Board of Trustees, Deans, Associate Deans, Dept chairs, faculty members, Office of Academic affairs, Assessment Committee & College Assessment representatives, General Education Committee and Chairs of Senate DLO/TLO committee.

On page 12 comments are made around perceived improvements on shared governance

On page 13 comments made around the increased willingness by senior administration to have open discussions, there are even comments that the past administration announced decisions and faculty/staff would have to assert themselves# Also comments that historically negotiations were adversarial but the current president shows a willingness to listen#

http://www.uakron.edu/dotAsset/bcefd4a3-13e9-4406-b05b-bdadb80c68ab.pdf

Those comments are comforting to me because these changes are going to take collaboration and buy-in from everyone to make it work. It appears we are in good hands (I hope)

[Dave in Green]

A-zip, I think we all need to try to be a little more patient with each other. Sometimes some of us get a little frustrated when we see others apparently jumping to conclusions and sounding overly alarmist. On the other hand others may get frustrated with what they perceive as a lack of concern about a serious matter. We should try to remember that we share the common goal of wanting the best for UA. We need to try to talk these issues through and not get distracted into bickering with each other over minor differences of opinion, which only raises everyone's frustration level.

That document you linked to is pretty interesting and well worth reading.

[ZachTheZip]

If the message is about differentiation, then there is one move that is guaranteed to have more impact on the public's opinion of the university than a tagline or proclaimed edicational focus. That move is to get out of the MAC.

Sports are a huge part of the cultural fabric of Ohio. Right now, there are six MAC universities in Ohio, including four that Dr. Scarborough has identified as in danger of failing and as universities that Akron needs to set itself apart from. MAC teams get lumped together in the minds of the public, and are largely interchangeable from the perspective of OSU fans who dominate the state. Join Conference USA in place of UAB, and you're instantly considered different from the other universities in a way that the general public can quickly identify.

While C-USA is nearly identical to the MAC from a competitive and financial standpoint, they represent a more national perspective. The MAC is far too insular and concentrated in Ohio and Michigan while C-USA is spread from the Mid-Atlantic to Florida to the Ohio Valley to Texas. Being in C-USA shows that Akron is ready to step outside of this little corner of the world and belong to something that exists on a broader scale.

[skip-zip]

Zach, Differentiation is great.....IF it's successful at making you superior to a competitor. The initial perception of "Akron wants to be a Tech school" or "Akron wanted to change their name to Ohio Tech", and the overwhelming negative opinion of the change from students and alums is certainly proof that the "differentiation" is not creating the impression of superiority.

How long this will last, or if it can ever be turned in the other direction is the challenge.

I've seen in some of the quotes that the Pres. said something about maybe making education about the meaning of "Polytechnic" a first step. That's certainly an indication to me that maybe this was not thought out as thoroughly as it should have been, or that the initial reaction was not what was anticipated. And in my opinion, that makes this decision appear to be a mistake.

[LosAngelesZipFan]

Just getting a chance to catch up on all the discussion here.

I spent time this week with Arizona State president Michael Crow. He is really a force of nature and is using his platform as head of the largest University in the country to drive innovation and a whole new approach to higher education, one rooted in inclusion, quality, and student support with the goal of creating lifelong learners. Over 40% of ASU grads are the first in their families to go to college. Something like 85% have jobs within 30 days of graduating. The approach is focused on surrounding students with the support they need to push through obstacles and get their degree. This new approach has been recognized/validated by Starbucks, who chose ASU to be its academic partner in its College Achievement Plan, which will pay for any Sbux employee's undergrad degree. They chose ASU after a 12 month intensive review of practically every online program. There are something like 80 degrees that can be obtained online, fully accredited. Most recently, ASU started offering a fully online Electrical Engineering degree.

There are many things that resonate in what I know about UA and what I have learned about ASU. This deep dive on higher education has only reinforced my POV that eventually UA and Can't need to merge, probably as a first step of merging CSU, YSU and NEOUCOM into a 'system'. If this had happened 20 years ago, this NEO U would have been in the position of:

• being chosen for the Sbux program among the likes of ASU
• would be playing in the Big 10 (or if we had been blocked by OSU from joining competing at the same level in a different league or as an indy)
• and would be a 100K+ enrollment, $1 billion + endowment, top tier research, and globally meaningful institution that would be a real economic engine for NEO bringing in new people, new money, new ideas, new businesses, etc.

I totally acknowledge that many wouldn't trade loyalty to UA for this envisioned future institution, but I think it is worth at least the thought exercise to get a better understanding the of trade offs of supporting the status quo.

I do think president Scarborough deserves kudos for taking on these big issues early in his tenure. I like that he is providing strategic focus on the key threats and had identified and is pursuing what he views as the opportunity for the U, as an institution and brand.

What I remain really concerned about is how this is being executed. Modeling the institution on a "polytech" is a great idea-- it's frankly what we are and have been. We don't have one of the largest and oldest co-op programs by accident. There is a reason that UA didn't have Can't State type protests in 1970 having to do with the type of students we attract and the reason why they are at UA. So, modeling UA fully on a polytech is totally logical-- a ready made, time tested guide to strategy and structure. It's an organizing principle. It does not, however, mean much to the general public so it does not help UA's brand in the near term.

So, instead of thinking that adding "polytech" as a descriptor, or worse changing the name of the institution at this point, I wish instead he was saying "a polytech is XYZ-- this is our heritage and our future. It's a powerful idea that will get us to (fill in blank)." and then, instead of adding a confusing, ill-defined, little understood word as a tagline, I wish they were adding a highest level output of a polytech approach-- "thriving beyond theory" or whatever (I'm a strategist not a copywriter). You can use polytech to drive the structure and align around a 'big idea' (even if this particular big idea is 200 years old, big but not so fresh) but instead of announcing it and saying "we need to focus the brand" then completely confuse everyone, spend the next 2 years aligning everything at the school around this-- pushing beyond theory to practice, experience is key, etc. And then, with real proof points of how this new organizing principle is being applied, begin to talk about it and perhaps even consider a name change.

This just hasn't been a very well-considered process, at least externally, culminating in the recent letter from the other presidents. We've succeeded in getting these NEO institutions aligned-- unfortunately, it is against us.

[ZippyRulz]

In seeking students, WSU Tri-Cities looks to add ‘polytechnic’ to its repertoire

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2015/05/23/3575307_in-seeking-students-wsu-tri-cities.html?rh=1

The University of Akron in Ohio also recently undertook a similar initiative, rebranding itself as “Ohio’s Polytechnic University” in a speech by the university’s president.

“Career-focused. Connected to industry. Experiential. Technology-infused. In both the sciences and the arts. It is what some have called the merger of the practical arts and the liberal arts,” Scott Scarborough said in a speech to the City Club of Cleveland.

Akron has struggled with enrollment in recent years. Increased competition for students and resources was part of the drive for the university’s new approach, Scarborough said.

The move was criticized by many alumni and Akron students, and some noted that it would potentially sever their ability to continue at the university.

“I saved for my son's education for 15 years. I wanted him to be a U of A graduate, not Ohio Polytechnic. He's a political science major — explain how that fits,” one woman commented on a post about the changes on the University of Akron Facebook page.

[LosAngelesZipFan]

It's really about the word "polytechnic" and the way they have gone about introducing it-- re-naming vs re-branding vs strategic statement. They let the conversation go off into a distracting places instead of saying "here's why this makes sense and here's how we are now changing everything to reflect this" (examples: you can go to lots of places to study the theory of political science or you can come to Akron and learn the theory and apply it as an undergrad in the Bliss; you can go get an engineering degree some place or you can come to Akron and get that degree plus real world experience applying it, etc.). It's not that there isn't quality liberal arts programs, it's that everything has a bias to the application of theory into the context of the real world.

Strategy has to happen from the 'inside-out' (what are our core competencies and capabilities) and the 'outside-in' (what's the market need). Using 'polytech' makes sense from the inside-out-- it's consistent with what we have always been about. The fail is in the other side of the equation-- no one in the market is saying that Ohio is missing a 'polytech' because no one knows what that is. The word itself is a distractor because "the market" doesn't equate it to "great education with practical outcomes in mind".

[skip-zip]

There's many interesting things in that article, ZippyRulz, including a provost from Cal Poly talking about how nobody can even agree on the meaning of "Polytechnic", which surely will make "educating" about the new terminology even easier.

So, if I have this right, we're making a change that's also being made for the supposed benefits, just like Washington State Tri-Cities, and other references to Wisconsin-Stout. Relatively insignificant and unknown branch schools. I can certainly understand how a school with an enrollment of 1,400 that's only been around since 1989 can take the risk of being pigeonholed. But, why us?

I think the new motto should maybe be: The University of Akron - The Washington State Tri-Cities of the East.

[ZippyRulz]

Polytechnic is a difficult term to define, said Phil Bailey, acting provost for California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo in California, and no one agrees on the same description.

Polytechnic schools provide a mindset instead of just a skill set, Bailey said. He drew a comparison to the chemistry lab courses he’s taught on his campus for the past four decades.

“The purpose isn’t to teach how to use instrumentation, it’s to teach how to use instrumentation in an intellectual way,” he told the Herald. “It’s about problem-solving.”

And it has been a great marketing tool, he said. The largely undergraduate university has no football team but offers numerous research opportunities, with more than half of Cal Poly San Louis Obispo’s research papers having undergraduate authors. More than 55,000 students apply to the school each year for one of 4,000 slots.

“We’re in a 23-campus system. We stand out because we’re polytechnic,” Bailey said.

Read more here: http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2015/05/23/3575307_in-seeking-students-wsu-tri-cities.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy

[Dave in Green]

ZippyRulz, there's lots of meat in that article. I was about to post the same quote you just did and comment that if everyone thought that becoming a polytechnic university would accomplish for UA what's described in those quotes that there'd be much less opposition. UA needs to research more data like this and share it with the public.

[Balsy]

ZippyRulz we also should give a flying flip about what the proponents of rebranding have to say about it. Here's my commentary, as a person who is opposed to it. A lot of my commentary is from being in education myself. We hear claims like these all the time, just replace polytechnic with flipped classroom, blended classroom, online classroom, engaging classroom etc...(whatever the lingo of the day is). And more often than not, it's a fad, that isn't well supported by actual peer-reviewed studies. Most educational research isn't very reliable because of the inability to reproduce findings.

"Polytechnic schools provide a mindset, not just a skill set"

I don't fully agree with what he's argueing here. Does switching to a polytechnic school mean that you're going to focus on bringing in professors who are deeply invested in their field AND the university? Contingent faculty are not that, and that's the direction Scarborough has eluded to. Replacing intro level classes with MOOCs and "success coaches" rather than having classroom classes with graudate level, or higher, professors teaching the class. A mindset is not built by providing resources, names or internships. A mindset is built by surrounding the learner with teachers who encourage the student to want to learn, problem solve etc.

I attended UA before it was rebranded as a Polytechnic. The disciplines where I learned a mindset were because of the professors that I had. The better the faculty, the better the mindset. But also in the sciences, such as chemistry, you do have to have a certain amount of skills training. Which is why those entry level (freshman level) classes and labs exist, of which UA is suggesting should be taught in a MOOC.

"It's a great marketing tool"

Is it really though? Is it the Polytechnic part that really is the marketing tool? Or is it the amount of peer-reviewed research is published by undergraduates? I'm not buying that students are attracted to it because it's a Polytechnic. They're attracted to it because of the amount of undergraduate research. The point I'm trying to make here, is that whether or not your a university or a polytechnic should not dicatate the opportunities given to students. Why bother rebranding with "Polytechnique" and not just increasing the level of undergraduate opportunities to conduct research? So do you really stand out because your a polytechnique, or is it because of the research opportunities.

[Dave in Green]

LosAngelesZipFan, again I really appreciate your viewpoint as someone who interfaces with higher education executives on a professional level. Your points about ASU are interesting and pertinent to the UA discussion. As someone with experience in rolling out corporate business plans to the public, I'd like to address your point that the rollout of the polytechnic concept at UA appears not to be well planned. The reality is that we don't know what the rollout plan would have been because the polytechnic plan itself never had a chance to be fully formulated.

To summarize what actually happened, the process that was put in motion to develop a future identity and direction for UA was still in its internal discussion stages with various constituencies within the university. A self-identified UA faculty member short-circuited the internal process by prematurely going public on this forum with the claim that UA's President had an idea to rename the university. That started a commotion here that was picked up by the media and helped stir up public protests.

I think it's fair to say that all of the above resulted in UA being forced to answer questions about a plan that had not yet been fully developed. With no firm plan yet in place, it was entirely predictable that there would not be adequate answers to all the public questions.

[a-zip]

Dave, I did not know a faculty member leaked this prematurely. That is one of the risks of "shared governance" I guess.

If this is the case, I feel even more strongly that the ABJ was irresponsible for putting out a poll asking us if we liked the rebranding "strategy". All they did was stir the pot because Dr. S and constituents were still formulating the "strategy". But because this was leaked, a poll was put out and everyone (including presidents of rival schools) were up in arms, they were forced to start explaining something that was not intended for the masses.