Gartner DMReg Article - Calls out Iowa

LINK

Gartner really lets loose in the article. Calls out Iowa on revenue sharing (appropriations should shift to UNI and away from Uof) and faculty involvement in university management. Also discusses an Iowa academic 'system' and giving ownership of athletic revenue to university (i.e. siphon money for iowa undergraduate tuition).

Very interesting article. The thing is I don't think he understands that to stay relevant in athletics and academics (for that matter) the university needs to bring in revenue by whatever means necessary.

The public universities have some problems that Gartner's analysis does not cover. In finance, for ex., he says do not expect state appropriations to increase but also calls for a halt in tuition increases. He also says that the faculty need to do more teaching, which of course would diminish their research. The problem? If you cannot raise tuition and there will be no further help from state appropriations, you need the faculty to compete successfully for research money (grants and contracts) because that will be the only possible source of new money for the schools. As it now stands, Iowa St. receives only about 39% of its funding from the state, whereas in the early 1980s it received twice that percentage from the state.

IMO - in order to really improve the system of the 3 public universities, you would need to look at them all at once. i.e. if you want to eliminate majors, and 3 of the universities offer the same major....drop it down to one. If the other 2 NEED that major for some reason, make it easier to share information...and if a student wanted to take a yr at ISU then UNI, let them. Pool resources, when possible.

There are a lot of things like that, but there won't ever be a change because there would be calls from everyone saying that you are playing favorites with one vs the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kitkat

The public universities have some problems that Gartner's analysis does not cover. In finance, for ex., he says do not expect state appropriations to increase but also calls for a halt in tuition increases. He also says that the faculty need to do more teaching, which of course would diminish their research. The problem? If you cannot raise tuition and there will be no further help from state appropriations, you need the faculty to compete successfully for research money (grants and contracts) because that will be the only possible source of new money for the schools. As it now stands, Iowa St. receives only about 39% of its funding from the state, whereas in the early 1980s it received twice that percentage from the state.

---

It's like when people complain about T.A.s teaching or being involved in entry-level classes. In reality, do you want to pay for a tenure-track faculty for something they really aren't necessary for, or do you want to pay a T.A. a third or less of the same salary for something they're entirely qualified to do (usually)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crash_zone

IMO - in order to really improve the system of the 3 public universities, you would need to look at them all at once. i.e. if you want to eliminate majors, and 3 of the universities offer the same major....drop it down to one. If the other 2 NEED that major for some reason, make it easier to share information...and if a student wanted to take a yr at ISU then UNI, let them. Pool resources, when possible.

There are a lot of things like that, but there won't ever be a change because there would be calls from everyone saying that you are playing favorites with one vs the other.

---

Couldn't disagree more. Each university is SEPARATE for a reason. I do not want to see Iowa high school seniors being shoehorned into a particular school because of the field of study they wish to pursue - or, worse yet, being constrained to majors they don't really like because they fell in love with UNI/UI/ISU and just HAD to go there (we were all 17 once, we know what that can be like).

I would absolutely HATE to see our state universities become the University of Iowa at Cedar Falls, the University of Iowa at Ames, and the "flagship" in Iowa City, a la the Nebraska system (among others). Our system works well and can obviously be improved but that would be a huge step backwards IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crash_zone

IMO - in order to really improve the system of the 3 public universities, you would need to look at them all at once. i.e. if you want to eliminate majors, and 3 of the universities offer the same major....drop it down to one. If the other 2 NEED that major for some reason, make it easier to share information...and if a student wanted to take a yr at ISU then UNI, let them. Pool resources, when possible.

There are a lot of things like that, but there won't ever be a change because there would be calls from everyone saying that you are playing favorites with one vs the other.

---

I wouldn't like that, at all.

I agree to an extent with eliminating some majors. Some others however are sustainable. Enough people major in business stuff to justify business colleges at all three. Some of the majors that have 50 graduates per year however don't need to have programs on all three campuses. Transferring isn't difficult by any means so there's no reason each university needs to have every major that people want.

The problem is rather than figure out other ways to figure out budgets, it seems its just easiest to raise tuition.

I thought he made a number of good points in the article. He recognizes that the most effective way to control tuition is through controlling expenses (as opposed to trying to pry more money from the state, which is a losing battle these days). We may not like the idea of eliminating duplication of majors, but the goal of our state universities is to educate Iowa's citizens. The goal is not, as some have suggested, to make sure that the university that we love offers the major we want. If you're not mature enough to swallow your pride and attend whichever university is best suited to your career aspiraitons, you're probably not mature enough to be spending the kind of dough that is required to attend one of these universities (try community college instead until you come to your senses).

Of course, not all of the ideas are perfect. As some have mentioned, reducing research time could lead to lowered revenues. It might also be more difficult to recruit top-notch faculty if they're required to do more instruction here than elsewhere.

Gartner certainly seems to have significant respect for Geoffroy, calling him "visionary" and noting that his retirement will be a significant negative event for ISU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by azepp

I thought he made a number of good points in the article. He recognizes that the most effective way to control tuition is through controlling expenses (as opposed to trying to pry more money from the state, which is a losing battle these days). We may not like the idea of eliminating duplication of majors, but the goal of our state universities is to educate Iowa's citizens. The goal is not, as some have suggested, to make sure that the university that we love offers the major we want. If you're not mature enough to swallow your pride and attend whichever university is best suited to your career aspiraitons, you're probably not mature enough to be spending the kind of dough that is required to attend one of these universities (try community college instead until you come to your senses).

Of course, not all of the ideas are perfect. As some have mentioned, reducing research time could lead to lowered revenues. It might also be more difficult to recruit top-notch faculty if they're required to do more instruction here than elsewhere.

Gartner certainly seems to have significant respect for Geoffroy, calling him "visionary" and noting that his retirement will be a significant negative event for ISU.

---

It's not about maturity. It's about going to a college of your choice. The last thing I would want is to be "forced" to go to a college just because it's the only one in the state that offers a certain major.
Like myself, and probably most others, you end up switching majors. If only certain colleges offered certain majors, you may end up having to move to another town to attend college, just because your current college doesn't offer the major you want to change to.

If you are forced to a college based upon the major you want, it would be like being forced to a certain high school based upon the area you live in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyclonedave25

It's not about maturity. It's about going to a college of your choice. The last thing I would want is to be "forced" to go to a college just because it's the only one in the state that offers a certain major.
Like myself, and probably most others, you end up switching majors. If only certain colleges offered certain majors, you may end up having to move to another town to attend college, just because your current college doesn't offer the major you want to change to.

If you are forced to a college based upon the major you want, it would be like being forced to a certain high school based upon the area you live in.

---

I don't disagree that limiting options is a negative thing. I enjoyed having the option to switch to a wide variety of majors and not leave Ames. I guess my question is whether it is acceptable for tuition to continue to increase at unrealistic rates and taxpayers continue to subsidize this convenience.

Either way, I would argue that if you lack the ability to realize that your career training is more important than living and attending classes in Ames, you really need to evaluate your priorities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by azepp

I don't disagree that limiting options is a negative thing. I enjoyed having the option to switch to a wide variety of majors and not leave Ames. I guess my question is whether it is acceptable for tuition to continue to increase at unrealistic rates and taxpayers continue to subsidize this convenience.

Either way, I would argue that if you lack the ability to realize that your career training is more important than living and attending classes in Ames, you really need to evaluate your priorities.

---

I thought partying was the first priority in college??? :wink::v_SPIN:

The last thing I would want is to be "forced" to go to a college just because it's the only one in the state that offers a certain major.

What if you want to be a Doctor, Lawyer or Veteranarian?

If you are forced to a college based upon the major you want, it would be like being forced to a certain high school based upon the area you live in.

It's pretty much the way that it is if your surrounded by districts that don't accept open enrollment. I don't think the suburban schools in Des Moines would accept every Des Moines city kid just because they wanted to go to a suburban school.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyclone83

The last thing I would want is to be "forced" to go to a college just because it's the only one in the state that offers a certain major.

What if you want to be a Doctor, Lawyer or Veteranarian?

If you are forced to a college based upon the major you want, it would be like being forced to a certain high school based upon the area you live in.

It's pretty much the way that it is if your surrounded by districts that don't accept open enrollment. I don't think the suburban schools in Des Moines would accept every Des Moines city kid just because they wanted to go to a suburban school.

---

1. You go get your undergrad (at the school of your choice) then you apply for different grad schools (of your choice).

2. Exactly. In HS you go to whatever school district you live in. (unless you go private).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyclonedave25

I thought partying was the first priority in college??? :wink::v_SPIN:

---

What!?!?!?! Where do they offer that major?!?!?