Scarborough's next move...

[Valpo Zip]

That's the recipe that served the university, the community and the region successfully for decades.

We live in a different world SeeTee. Most kids nowadays are not looking to go to the "local" school. At least the good ones. Good local students want to go to a ranked school and they don't care if that school is 2-5 hours away. We live in a global economy... you either compete with the sharks or get out of business.

You add to that the fact that the area is not growing and the number of HS graduates is plummeting, and that makes your strategy a recipe for decreasing enrollment.

[ctmjbowes@sbcglobal.net]

Ranked schools? I've lived in the professional world long enough to know without a doubt that unless you graduated from Harvard or a "regional Ivy", the school you went to means very little. A "name" school and connections made there will open certain doors the first time out of school but it's on each individual thereafter. Also, the cost of education these days is staggering, obscene really. UA will never compete with the "name" universities in the ways you describe. Why not be the practical, affordable university that strives to provide high quality education to local and regional students, along with working adults?

Edited October 27, 2015 by SeeTeeZip

[ZippyRulz]

Because it's not going to work demographically and financially going forward.

[Balsy]

We live in a different world SeeTee. Most kids nowadays are not looking to go to the "local" school.

This statement is really out of touch, and not accurate in the slightest. I'm considerably younger than most on this forum, I graduated less than a decade ago from high school and I now work with high school students. There has been a considerable shift in those few years from kids talking about big names to thinking about something more local. Saving money is usually a reason for that.

But hardly any of my high school students ever talk about big name schools. They're looking for a degree, not a name, believe it or not. To most of them, the names like "Harvard" or "Yale" or "Oxford" have no meaning. More students are interested in regional names than they are national ones. More students express an interest in Ohio State, than they do Harvard or Yale. More express an interest in Akron, Can't, Ohio University or Bowling Green, then express an interest in Ohio State or the Ivy leagues...combined.

A strategy focused on deemphasizing the local/regional connection is a really shortsided, and doomed strategy.

Edited October 27, 2015 by Balsy

[Valpo Zip]

No one is suggesting de-emphasizing the local/regional connection. The local students who want to go to Akron for whatever reason will still do that. They won't mind having more classmates from Lima or Dayton or Lancaster, would they?

The most interesting thing about discussions on this board is the two extreme mentality. When I bring up the crappiness of our home BBall schedule, the argument is that Duke will never come to the JAR. Now that we're talking about elevating the school's reputation and attractiveness, you're throwing Harvard and Yale in my face?

President Scarborough was tasked by the board of trustees to elevate Akron to the level of OSU, Cincy, and Miami. NOT HARVARD!

By the way, even with the recent tuition hikes, Akron is still cheaper than all three schools mentioned above. Yet, they attract more (non-local) in state students than we do. I agree with Balsy, It is common to see NEO students going to OU, BG, UC, Miami, OSU, etc. The reciprocal is not of the same magnitude. Why shouldn't we attract students from BG, and Athens? We're affordable, and we have great programs, why not promote them to those outside of Akron?

Edited October 28, 2015 by Ada Zip

[ctmjbowes@sbcglobal.net]

What you describe below is more reasonable than what I hear coming from Scar & Co. Take the historical strengths of the school, the bond with the local and regional communities, strengthen those and only then add around the margins. Scar describes a national vision, he almost-universally alienated those at the school and in the community, overemphasized budget issues and (IMO) manufactured a crisis that provided cover to fire a lot of people and free up cash for that "national" vision. If he were taking the emphasis on recruiting to a larger regional level that might make sense, and it would help if he possessed reasonable people skills and engendered support from the community. He appears to be failing on all accounts and I am one who believes that he essentially lied to all of us, creating a false sense of urgency to ram through his "vision" so far. Read some of the excellent articles about his administration on thedevilstrip.com and you'll get a better sense of what appears to be going on.

Scar hired cronies from Toledo, paid them much larger salaries than those who they replaced, he unceremoniously dumped baseball in the worst way possible, he fired dozens of people who directly supported students and infrastructure, all because of a budget crisis that apparently isn't so severe as to keep him from additional pet projects like a "grand entrance" from Exchange. He obviously has made no friends among the media. I could go on but he's clearly well on his way to a failed leadership post at Akron, from which he'll depart to go somewhere else while the community and university are left holding the bag. I'll leave you with perhaps the most visible sign that Scar doesn't get it, nor do his minions nor the board: the expensive creation of a Corps of Cadets. There is absolutely zero logic behind creating one in a place that has no history suggestive of support of a Corps and that already offers a small but excellent ROTC program. Silly, embarassing, out of touch with the community, created by somebody who doesn't get it.

No one is suggesting de-emphasizing the local/regional connection. The local students who want to go to Akron for whatever reason will still do that. They won't mind having more classmates from Lima or Dayton or Lancaster, would they?

The most interesting thing about discussions on this board is the two extreme mentality. When I bring up the crappiness of our home BBall schedule, the argument is that Duke will never come to the JAR. Now that we're talking about elevating the school's reputation and attractiveness, you're throwing Harvard and Yale in my face?

President Scarborough was tasked by the board of trustees to elevate Akron to the level of OSU, Cincy, and Miami. NOT HARVARD!

By the way, even with the recent tuition hikes, Akron is still cheaper than all three schools mentioned above. Yet, they attract more (non-local) in state students than we do. I agree with Balsy, It is common to see NEO students going to OU, BG, UC, Miami, OSU, etc. The reciprocal is not of the same magnitude. Why shouldn't we attract students from BG, and Athens? We're affordable, and we have great programs, why not promote them to those outside of Akron?

[ctmjbowes@sbcglobal.net]

And right on cue:

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2015/10/founder_of_non-profit_running.html

JFC, SMH...

Scar's next move needs to be to go back to that grand parasite of grand republics, Texas.

[a-zip]

I've had to restrain myself from posting (which I know makes a lot of people happy). I just want to encourage all of you to not take everything you read at face value. Before you form your opinions and make judgements on something that is important to you.....do some research and question the information you are reading. There are so many people that have control of the media that have hidden agendas.

Last nights Republican debate was a crystal clear example of MEDIA (and whoever owns it) trying to manipulate public opinion for their own agenda.

I have said this many times before but I believe somebody at ohio.com (ABJ) has an agenda against THE University of Akron. Don't get caught up too much on olive jars...check the facts.

[Balsy]

I've had to restrain myself from posting (which I know makes a lot of people happy). I just want to encourage all of you to not take everything you read at face value. Before you form your opinions and make judgements on something that is important to you.....do some research and question the information you are reading. There are so many people that have control of the media that have hidden agendas.

Last nights Republican debate was a crystal clear example of MEDIA (and whoever owns it) trying to manipulate public opinion for their own agenda.

I have said this many times before but I believe somebody at ohio.com (ABJ) has an agenda against THE University of Akron. Don't get caught up too much on olive jars...check the facts.

So Scarborough is incapable of responding? (Let's ignore the Republican Debate for now).

Has the ABJ reported anything that is an outright lie? Has the ABJ willingly missled the public about UA? Can you demonstrate that? I can understand the contention that the ABJ has focused on negative stories about UA, which seems to show a bias, but is any of the information inaccurate?

It should be no suprise that the media has a corporate bias. Its about selling a product, and stories/topics are going to be written that are going to drive readership and "clicks", as DiG (and several others) has pointed out to us before. I propose to you that it's not a media bias, but rather a media distortion, that's not necessarily done on purpose, which is what happens when you have non-experts reporting on things that there are actually experts in.

Things are not always reported on in a proper context. This media distortion is a well known entity in science; where fake-debates have been made by the media about Vaccinations, Evolution, Climate Change; whereas the scientific community, the experts, already came to concensuss, and the facts are in. I know you a-zip may not agree with some of those issues, which (no offense) is an example of this product brought to you by the media distortion: proporting a controvery or a debate when there actually isn't one.

It may make us mad, but that's reality, a reality that leaders have to deal with, and brings me back to my original question: Is Scarborough incapable of responding?

Good leadership would challenge this bias and rewrite the narrative. Especially if the narrative that is out there is factually incorrect, misleading, or an outright lie. How much has Scarborough responded? Not much; and it's usually some nebulous high-tower crap that doesn't actually mean anything. If criticisms are being levied, even unfair ones, you slap them back with facts and evidence. Facts and evidence always win out if they're actually on your side. At the very least, why isn't UA's leaders taking a strong stance on controlling the narrative? If what we're seeing is the Administrations' Attempt at doing that, than SeeTeeZips' prediction is going to be dead on.

[ctmjbowes@sbcglobal.net]

Have you read any of the well-done reportage on thedevilstrip.com? The writer is clearly no friend of Scar but those articles are packed with facts, including his having collected numerous documents and emails through FOIA requests. If anything, the Leaking Urinal has been its typical lazy self and not nearly aggressive nor detailed enough It seems fairly clear that Scar "sold" the notion of fiscal crisis that HAD to be dealt with immediately, as a way to make painful cuts and clear money for his vision. If he had said as much and could seel it to the board and community, so be it. I believe that he was duplicitous, because the money saved wasn't intended to simply bring the budget into alignment. He wanted to make those cuts to then shift that money to his vision, which requires a very different narrative than the one we have heard so far. Beyond the evasion and misrepresentation, I believe that his vision will not bring success.

Secondly, are you prepared to advocate that the hiring of the success coaching company was sound?

Lastly, please don't bring national politics into this. Proenza was a Republican, we all know that Scar is a Republican and actually ran for office earlier in his career. The issues I have with all of this have nothing to do with politics. I care about UA the institution, how it is a key component of the city and region, how critical it is that it not fail. Blue or red or purple, those running the show had better do a solid job and at the very least do no harm. Scar is doing harm.

I've had to restrain myself from posting (which I know makes a lot of people happy). I just want to encourage all of you to not take everything you read at face value. Before you form your opinions and make judgements on something that is important to you.....do some research and question the information you are reading. There are so many people that have control of the media that have hidden agendas.

Last nights Republican debate was a crystal clear example of MEDIA (and whoever owns it) trying to manipulate public opinion for their own agenda.

I have said this many times before but I believe somebody at ohio.com (ABJ) has an agenda against THE University of Akron. Don't get caught up too much on olive jars...check the facts.

[Balsy]

a-zip's point about the Media and bringing up the National Republican Debate wasn't to bring politics into the conversation...democrats vs republicans...but rather to caution us on believing one source over another on information. Though I don't hold the same opinion as a-zip on politics (I think we can admit that a-zip at this point ) I do think his caution is warranted if we are basing our criticisms souly on that which is reported by the ABJ.

[ctmjbowes@sbcglobal.net]

OK I'll buy that although my impression was that he was bringing politics into the discussion. In any event there are few who care about the well being of UA than those who post here so it's all good.

On a related note, I'm watching the Cavs tonight and this team has amazing potential. This could be a very good season for LBJ & Co.

Edited October 31, 2015 by SeeTeeZip

[a-zip]

Thank you Balsy. I am not trying to persuade anyone on their political beliefs. I was using an example of something I think hit a lot of Americans right between the eyes during the Republican debate this week and that is the media has incredible amount of power to influence people.

They can choose to spend time talking about fantasy football and olive jars or they can talk about irresponsible spending, deficits and breaches of national security.

Olive Jars, Donald Trump and controversy increases ratings. Unfortunately most of us are too busy and too lazy to dig into details...

[ctmjbowes@sbcglobal.net]

Thank you Balsy. I am not trying to persuade anyone on their political beliefs. I was using an example of something I think hit a lot of Americans right between the eyes during the Republican debate this week and that is the media has incredible amount of power to influence people.

They can choose to spend time talking about fantasy football and olive jars or they can talk about irresponsible spending, deficits and breaches of national security.

Olive Jars, Donald Trump and controversy increases ratings. Unfortunately most of us are too busy and too lazy to dig into details...

You do realize that your post makes oblique political statements yes? Also, most here (probably all) are well-versed in all of the things you describe. I have also read all of what's out there regarding goings-on at UA since Scar took over. Have you read the articles on thedevilstrip.com? How about the latest about the "success coach" outfit? Are you close enough to know how well UA is doing with donations since Scar took over?

Let's agree that all who post here are sincere and care about the long term success of UA, but if you're prepared to defend Scar based on actual fact and detail, please offer up something that might persuade your fellow posters. I would love to learn that he's actually a wonderful visionary who is simply misunderstood and that UA is on the cusp of magical greatness. Convince us.

[a-zip]

You do realize that your post makes oblique political statements yes? Also, most here (probably all) are well-versed in all of the things you describe. I have also read all of what's out there regarding goings-on at UA since Scar took over. Have you read the articles on thedevilstrip.com? How about the latest about the "success coach" outfit? Are you close enough to know how well UA is doing with donations since Scar took over?

Let's agree that all who post here are sincere and care about the long term success of UA, but if you're prepared to defend Scar based on actual fact and detail, please offer up something that might persuade your fellow posters. I would love to learn that he's actually a wonderful visionary who is simply misunderstood and that UA is on the cusp of magical greatness. Convince us.

No SeeTee I have not read articles on the devilstrip but I have now. Thanks for guiding me there because it illustrates exactly what I have been saying. It is fairly obvious that those on the devilstrip have an incredibly biased opinion.....I am not sure I saw a single positive article written so if that is what you subscribe to I am not surprised you would have anything positive to say about anything UA. My post was not about politics nor was it to defend Dr. S.

[a-zip]

I'm curious..........Why would anyone agree or disagree with my political beliefs? Have I stated them?

[Balsy]

I'm curious..........Why would anyone agree or disagree with my political beliefs? Have I stated them?

No...neither have I...but I'm pretty sure you've called me of a Libby Lib on some of the other topics. I think we can all read between the lines based upon some of our examples and can see that some members lean right, while some lean left.

But it's all irrelavent. Is Scarborough doing enough? Despite the ABJ staying on a rather negative narrative, what evidence do we have to rewrite that narrative? We should be skeptical, but that skepticism doesn't just apply to the ABJ, it also should apply to Scarborough's Administration.

Edited October 31, 2015 by Balsy

[a-zip]

No...neither have I...but I'm pretty sure you've called me of a Libby Lib on some of the other topics. I think we can all read between the lines based upon some of our examples and can see that some members lean right, while some lean left.

But it's all irrelavent. Is Scarborough doing enough? Despite the ABJ staying on a rather negative narrative, what evidence do we have to rewrite that narrative? We should be skeptical, but that skepticism doesn't just apply to the ABJ, it also should apply to Scarborough's Administration.

So you are essentially publishing information on me that is not necessarily accurate and you are forming a judgement on me by "reading between the lines" hmmmm

[Balsy]

So you are essentially publishing information on me that is not necessarily accurate and you are forming a judgement on me by "reading between the lines" hmmmm

Dang it, you caught me. I'm a writer for the ABJ.

[ctmjbowes@sbcglobal.net]

So you are essentially publishing information on me that is not necessarily accurate and you are forming a judgement on me by "reading between the lines" hmmmm

A-Zip, I don't understand your arguments at all, probably because you don't actually argue anything beyond, generally, that the media is biased and that there's more to the story about UA than we know. I've asked you at least twice to respond to specifics, or provide specifics, but you fail to answer.

The commercial media is mostly corporate-owned these days. Also, the debate you referred to was hosted by CNBC, a business news network ultimately owned by GE, hardly a bastion of liberalism. What exactly is your point about the media and what does that point have to do with ABJ's coverage of UA? Does media bias explain why donations to UA are way down? Does the ABJ run UA? Is Scarborough responsible, at least in part, for the UA narrative in the public sphere? Do you think it was cool to fire bunches of people under the guise of fiscal crisis and then immediately shift into spending mode?

Institutions are responsible for the ways they are perceived, not the media nor the readers of the paper. Is Scar unhappy with the narrative so far? It's his job to change it, to get in front of it.

[a-zip]

A-Zip, I don't understand your arguments at all, probably because you don't actually argue anything beyond, generally, that the media is biased and that there's more to the story about UA than we know. I've asked you at least twice to respond to specifics, or provide specifics, but you fail to answer.

The commercial media is mostly corporate-owned these days. Also, the debate you referred to was hosted by CNBC, a business news network ultimately owned by GE, hardly a bastion of liberalism. What exactly is your point about the media and what does that point have to do with ABJ's coverage of UA? Does media bias explain why donations to UA are way down? Does the ABJ run UA? Is Scarborough responsible, at least in part, for the UA narrative in the public sphere? Do you think it was cool to fire bunches of people under the guise of fiscal crisis and then immediately shift into spending mode?

Institutions are responsible for the ways they are perceived, not the media nor the readers of the paper. Is Scar unhappy with the narrative so far? It's his job to change it, to get in front of it.

There is nothing for me to argue or debate SeeTee. I made a statement basically saying that I hope people do research before they make judgements or decisions because the media can be biased.

My statement was not proScarboruogh, not proRepublican, not proDemocrat.....so relax!

I was simply saying educate yourself and don't believe everything you read. Look at ALL the facts. Read the Devilswhateverseeteereads, the National Enquirer, CNBC, CNN, Jon Stewart, Rush Limbaugh - read the bills being proposed, see where social security money is being stolen, look at the debt our university has, the debt our country has. Tough and unpopular decisions have to be made my friend.

If you want to argue that is not sound guidance you will hear crickets from me dude.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Dr Z

[ctmjbowes@sbcglobal.net]

Are you the crazy homeless preacher I see on the way into my building every day?

[Balsy]

...getting this topic back to Scarborough and UA...

A-Zip: SeeTeeZip's point isn't that tough decisions aren't necessary, or need to be made. His point is that it appears that the Scarborough may have been not so transparent (which has been a criticism that I and many others levied against his leadership since he became president) when it came to the cuts and the situation of the cuts. His arguement is valid, especially when we consider the wonderful research/writing of DiG.

When this "Debt Crisis" (as it's become known at the ABJ) first became public, it was trumpeted as a $60-million shortfall that needed to be closed immidiately. The ABJ reported it that way originally, which was direcly from information released to them by UA. UA never issued any corrections, as they did when it came to cutting 200 positions.

Later, through reporting, it was revealed that it wasn't a $60-million shortfall that existed (as it had been painted) but was actually $20-million, with other $40-million being for future program developments and initiatives. This is where SeeTeeZip comes from with his arguement that Scarborough's administration has "manufactured" a budget crisis in order to inact new sweeping policies. And you've got to admit a-zip...he has a point. These are straight facts, without bias attached. The ABJ didn't make this up, it was instead the slow release of information by this administration. Any bias that the ABJ had was in their constant focus on the issue. An issue, that it appears the administration wasn't so forth-right in discussing.

Unless you're advocating that the ABJ willing fabricated information, than you've got to, at the very least, admit that there is some level of credibility to his position. The administration was in no hurry to "correct the record" on the reporting of a $60-million shortfall; which makes it either deliberate or a poor leadership.

[LosAngelesZipFan]

have to add my 2cents here.... "which makes it either deliberate or a poor leadership"-- it was both.

I started asking about $60 million number on this board last spring because it just didn't make sense. It just felt very Reichstag fire. The painting of the financial position is immediately dire (vs. challenged/unsustainable over the long term) seemed to quickly become about justifying immediate changes to the positioning, name, etc.--- the brand-- rather making a well-reasoned argument for making those strategic changes. As I wrote about a couple months ago after the PD finally poked a hole in the $60 million financial emergency balloon (http://zipsnation.org/forums/topic/34037-explaining-the-deficit/), the real budget gap could be managed with a less than 2% annual trim to the overall budget.

The media absolutely has a negative news bias-- if it bleeds it leads as the saying goes-- in large part because that is how we are hard-wired as homo sapiens. We pay much more attention to danger, threat and down-side risk than good news and upside potential. I don't think the ABJ has been on an anti-Scar jihad. In fact, they have written several pro-Scar op-eds, including one that basically repeated/validated the financial emergency storyline. Their job is to push and ask tough questions. I don't think Scar has proved to be adept at handling any of this, and the deliberate misleading of the UA community about the finances is in fact the proof-certain of the poor leadership.

Edited November 4, 2015 by LosAngelesZipFan

[a-zip]

...getting this topic back to Scarborough and UA...

A-Zip: SeeTeeZip's point isn't that tough decisions aren't necessary, or need to be made. His point is that it appears that the Scarborough may have been not so transparent (which has been a criticism that I and many others levied against his leadership since he became president) when it came to the cuts and the situation of the cuts. His arguement is valid, especially when we consider the wonderful research/writing of DiG.

When this "Debt Crisis" (as it's become known at the ABJ) first became public, it was trumpeted as a $60-million shortfall that needed to be closed immidiately. The ABJ reported it that way originally, which was direcly from information released to them by UA. UA never issued any corrections, as they did when it came to cutting 200 positions.

Later, through reporting, it was revealed that it wasn't a $60-million shortfall that existed (as it had been painted) but was actually $20-million, with other $40-million being for future program developments and initiatives. This is where SeeTeeZip comes from with his arguement that Scarborough's administration has "manufactured" a budget crisis in order to inact new sweeping policies. And you've got to admit a-zip...he has a point. These are straight facts, without bias attached. The ABJ didn't make this up, it was instead the slow release of information by this administration. Any bias that the ABJ had was in their constant focus on the issue. An issue, that it appears the administration wasn't so forth-right in discussing.

Unless you're advocating that the ABJ willing fabricated information, than you've got to, at the very least, admit that there is some level of credibility to his position. The administration was in no hurry to "correct the record" on the reporting of a $60-million shortfall; which makes it either deliberate or a poor leadership.

This is getting beyond ridiculous. I am not debating you Balsy or SeeTee although you guys keep trying to bring politics and other things into my comment. Your quote above actually supports what I am saying and that is to not believe everything you read in the media......do research before forming an opinion - PERIOD. You specifically say the ABJ originally reported the $60M shortfall incorrectly. Regardless of whether they got the incorrect information from UA, it was published all the same and people formed opinions based on what they read. You guys then immediately jump to the conclusion that Scarborough intentionally misled the ABJ. I cannot confirm or deny that is true.......I am more inclined to believe the people at the ABJ are too stupid to understand the information given to them. After all, wasn't it the PD that clarified the numbers in the end?

If you can't understand my bringing up the Republican debate as and "example" of media bias, there is not point in continuing this with you. Seriously wasting time asking presidential candidates about their fantasy football teams? You don't see it?

Oh, SeeTee - I will answer a few of your questions. YES, I do believe negative media would affect donations. It is kinda the same as losing season resulting in 3,500 coming to a football game. People generally will not jump on or invest in a ship they view to be sinking. Do I believe Scarborough is responsible for information going out to the public - SURE but if those reporting can't understand what is being given to them and publish whatever they want....you fight the fights that are worth fighting. Am I happy people got fired - NO but if it enables more modern/efficient initiatives towards online courses - I think that is a smart move. Do I like that the baseball program was eliminated - NO but if it frees up money for sports programs that have more of a chance of elevating UA nationally, it makes sense. Am I your crazy homeless preacher? Since I know the response I want to give will be edited....I will simply say no you idiot.

As LAZipfan pointed out.......you all seem to cherish negativity and controversy. Right here on this very thread you are taking a very simple comment I made....you start reading between the lines and completely twist it into a debate over something I did not even bring up.

ZNO has become downright depressing. FIRE EVERYONE!! Fire the soccer coach because he lost a game early. Fire TB (which means we lose Amato too!) Fire the president! Fire Marketing....Fire the AD. Thank god you guys are not the ones making decisions. Just reading what you guys seem to thrive on I guess I can't blame the ABJ or the devilsite for giving you guys what you want.