Fingerhut abandons idea of merging CSU and U of Akron, for now

[Spin]

All the examples you cite are privates next to publics--Duke, Xavier, USC, etc.

OK, try Toledo and Bowling Green.

[Dave in Green]

Akron and Canton share a major commercial airport that is much nicer than either city could support on its own.

And, best of all (for me), it's conveniently located in the City of Green.

[LosAngelesZipFan]

I'd say that BG and UT should combine too but would be fine if they remained status quo--less competition that way. Relatedly, Gmann makes the ultimate point-- a combo of Akron and Can't would really scramble the political calculus for Ohio State. I would hazard that is one reason why Fingerhut thought about combining UA and CSU, not Can't. No doubt OSU supporters would much rather in remain unchallenged in all ways in Ohio.

It's all just something to noodle.

[g-mann17]

I'd say that BG and UT should combine too but would be fine if they remained status quo--less competition that way. Relatedly, Gmann makes the ultimate point-- a combo of Akron and Can't would really scramble the political calculus for Ohio State. I would hazard that is one reason why Fingerhut thought about combining UA and CSU, not Can't. No doubt OSU supporters would much rather in remain unchallenged in all ways in Ohio.

It's all just something to noodle.

The primary reason for the UA/CSU combo was that Cleveland is well served by private universities. Combining the two schools would have increased research dollars for UA (which is what would have become of the whole thing UA-Cleveland) and lessened the student burden. It also would have stopped the current CSU developments for resident housing, turning it into a branch campus. This is why Cleveland would have nothing to do with it. They spent to much money up there making it a campus.

USF is a successful multi-campus university. The problem is it is only 50 some years old. You have 140 years of tradition at UA, 100 years at Can't and almost 90 at CSU. You will be hard pressed convincing the region and cities, let alone the alumni and voting public that it would be a benefit. Especially considering our region is so entrenched and the current motivator is anti poaching. Mergers will look like poaching to a city, especially one like Akron or Can't that its University is so key to its city identity.

That is why Fingerhut was promoting synergistic relationsips, that is why they have the "center of excellence" designations, and why they are promoting "non duplication of programs". If you are going to have 100 thousand students on 4 campuses (Can't State, UA, CSU, YSU) then you are going to have to make each unique.

[Spin]

I'd say that BG and UT should combine too but would be fine if they remained status quo--less competition that way. Relatedly, Gmann makes the ultimate point-- a combo of Akron and Can't would really scramble the political calculus for Ohio State. I would hazard that is one reason why Fingerhut thought about combining UA and CSU, not Can't. No doubt OSU supporters would much rather in remain unchallenged in all ways in Ohio.

It's all just something to noodle.

The primary reason for the UA/CSU combo was that Cleveland is well served by private universities. Combining the two schools would have increased research dollars for UA (which is what would have become of the whole thing UA-Cleveland) and lessened the student burden. It also would have stopped the current CSU developments for resident housing, turning it into a branch campus. This is why Cleveland would have nothing to do with it. They spent to much money up there making it a campus.

USF is a successful multi-campus university. The problem is it is only 50 some years old. You have 140 years of tradition at UA, 100 years at Can't and almost 90 at CSU. You will be hard pressed convincing the region and cities, let alone the alumni and voting public that it would be a benefit. Especially considering our region is so entrenched and the current motivator is anti poaching. Mergers will look like poaching to a city, especially one like Akron or Can't that its University is so key to its city identity.

That is why Fingerhut was promoting synergistic relationsips, that is why they have the "center of excellence" designations, and why they are promoting "non duplication of programs". If you are going to have 100 thousand students on 4 campuses (Can't State, UA, CSU, YSU) then you are going to have to make each unique.

Oh hell no. Not CSU. I dealt with them when looking for a school and again when I considerd transferring. It is 100% urban and I do not want to deal with them again. They are fine being Tri C's 4 year option.

At least Akron and Can't have a lot in common. And are close enough to make it work. I am no fan of CSU.

[g-mann17]

I'd say that BG and UT should combine too but would be fine if they remained status quo--less competition that way. Relatedly, Gmann makes the ultimate point-- a combo of Akron and Can't would really scramble the political calculus for Ohio State. I would hazard that is one reason why Fingerhut thought about combining UA and CSU, not Can't. No doubt OSU supporters would much rather in remain unchallenged in all ways in Ohio.

It's all just something to noodle.

The primary reason for the UA/CSU combo was that Cleveland is well served by private universities. Combining the two schools would have increased research dollars for UA (which is what would have become of the whole thing UA-Cleveland) and lessened the student burden. It also would have stopped the current CSU developments for resident housing, turning it into a branch campus. This is why Cleveland would have nothing to do with it. They spent to much money up there making it a campus.

USF is a successful multi-campus university. The problem is it is only 50 some years old. You have 140 years of tradition at UA, 100 years at Can't and almost 90 at CSU. You will be hard pressed convincing the region and cities, let alone the alumni and voting public that it would be a benefit. Especially considering our region is so entrenched and the current motivator is anti poaching. Mergers will look like poaching to a city, especially one like Akron or Can't that its University is so key to its city identity.

That is why Fingerhut was promoting synergistic relationsips, that is why they have the "center of excellence" designations, and why they are promoting "non duplication of programs". If you are going to have 100 thousand students on 4 campuses (Can't State, UA, CSU, YSU) then you are going to have to make each unique.

Oh hell no. Not CSU. I dealt with them when looking for a school and again when I considerd transferring. It is 100% urban and I do not want to deal with them again. They are fine being Tri C's 4 year option.

At least Akron and Can't have a lot in common. And are close enough to make it work. I am no fan of CSU.

I'm not promoting it, and they have learned that it isn't necessary. What they are learning is that all the schools can work as long as you aren't duplicating research. So Can't State keeps its LCD, Akron Keeps Polymer, Corrosion, Engineering, Biotech, etc.

Then programs like education, art, etc. can be duplicated. What will eventually happen is a person could take a class on Can't State campus to fill a need but still graduate at UA, or vice versa.

[ZippyRulz]

http://business-journal.com/Can't-ysu-akron...ep-p20244-1.htmIt's a start...