that the U of M and MnSCU are effectively responding to the
that it is urgent for the U of M and MnSCU boards to meet together
periodically and coordinate their responses to these forces.
that a new U of M president and a new MnSCU chancellor each should
possess demonstrated leadership ability to respond to such forces.
that one board should be responsible for two-year public
post-secondary institutions in Minnesota and another board for
four-year and graduate level institutions.
that all public post-secondary institutions in Minnesota should be
under one board.
Kent Eklund (5) (9)
(9) (3) (5)
The amount of work to
pull off the alternative futures depicted in #4 and #5 above could
divert attention from the real challenges.
C. M. Denny, Jr. (0)
(10) (10) (0) (10)
With their costs rising
at twice the rate of the CPI, both systems are operating under a
business model that can not be sustained.
Arvonne Fraser (5)
(6) (8) (7) (0)
I agree the selection
of the new leadership of both institutions is a huge challenge.
However, what was overlooked in this session was the needs of the
students, state and nation. The recognition of those needs will be a
critical factor in choosing new leadership. We--the state and
nation--need a well-educated workforce and that now requires a
critical mass of individuals educated beyond high-school. The
responsibility for creating that workforce is a public responsibility,
not simply a private and personal one. Agreement with that last
sentence should the prime question for any candidate for either office
in question and the search committee should know that.
Finally, as to
question 5 above, that would probably require a constitutional
amendment unless you put it all under the University which is covered
under Article XIII, Sec. 3 of the Minnesota Constitution. The U holds
a unique constitutional status that should not be overlooked in
selecting new leadership.
Dennis Johnson (2)
(2) (3) (0) (0)
There is a lot of talk about organizations or institutions that are
"too big to fail". I think these systems of higher education have
become "too big to succeed". They have grown fat and lazy, with little
pressure to compete for student and parent dollars. Online
universities are just what is needed. The private market, if left to
its own devices, always responds when existing systems become obsolete
and unwieldy. The railroad was invented to replace slow canal boat
travel. Aircraft were invented to replace slow train travel. The
internet was invented to replace traditional slow and limited means of
communication, including education. With the world's knowledge at your
fingertips at home, who will sit in a boring class listening to a
believe faithfully that government must step in and exercise control
or regulation when things aren't working right. If that were true, we
would still be traveling in canal boats and writing letters by snail
mail. Now these "experts" want the government to supply more money so
thousands of students can continue to sit in boring classes which
serve only to have their education interrupted. Online universities,
with a few exceptions, will replace most public universities. (The Ivy
League will survive for those in fields where "who you know" is more
important than "what you know").
When I began at the
University of Minnesota in 1950, my tuition was $37.88 per quarter, or
about $115.00 per year. (it increased a few dollars each year).
Today's equivalent, using a factor of about ten times from then to
today, the cost should be about $1200.00 per year.
(gasoline then was 26
to 28 cents a gallon, it is now $2.80. A candy bar was 5 cents, it is
now about 50 cents). In 1954, by holding a part time job, I was able
to pay my tuition, pay room and board at home, run a car, date my
future wife, and get by without any outside assistance. I felt I
received a very good education from faculty who were well trained,
worked hard, and almost never were absent. What happened in 60 years?
Where did things go wrong?
What went wrong,
among other things, is that Federal aid to education ran up the costs
for everyone, faculty joined unions, worked fewer hours and weeks per
year, costs of buildings and physical plant went out of control, and
the number of employees per student more than doubled because colleges
were required to do a lot of things they did not do before having
little to do with education. Graduation requirements were dumbed down,
and the quality of education suffered.
What to do now? Stop
feeding the enormous tapeworm occupying all these buildings and allow
the market and technology to reinvent higher education based on demand
from students, employers, and parents.
Donald H. Anderson
(6) (10) (10) (7) (7)
Scott Halstead (6)
(10) (10) (10) (_)
Wayne Jennings (2)
(7) (10) (2) (1)
Around the country 2 year community colleges are moving toward
offering 4 year degrees. 4 years to complete a program is an
anachronism in this age. We need also to think about combining the
last 2 years of high school with college.
Terry Stone (2) (5)
Robert Freeman (2.5)
(5) (10) (2.5) (2.5)
Question 2: doubt this will happen - it
seems like they are too adversarial.
Question 3: l agree it should be
someone who comes from a higher education background. Echo that they
should also be a leader and a skillful politician.
Question 5: Think having some
competition in the system is a good thing.
Carol Becker (0) (10)
(10) (0) (10)
Question 1: I think the education
world is going through the same sort of reckoning that other parts of
the economy have been going through. Technology provides new and in
some ways, superior tools for providing an education. Costs have been
escalating for many years faster than inflation, to the point where
most people cannot afford to go to college or leave so burdened in
debt that it is a millstone around their neck for much of their life.
Jobs don't pay what they used to so the cost-benefit of a higher
education isn't what it used to be. The myth that higher education has
to pay increasingly larger salaries to attract the "best" talent to do
things other than teach continues to increase the cost of an
education. And state support of education and research has been
declining for a long time and will continue to decline, putting the
burden on students to both finance their educations and pay for
expensive staff who were brought here to do research and not teach.
Question 4: The programs need to be
coordinated so people can move between programs if they need to.
Question 5: In public affairs, the
University has a program in Minneapolis and Duluth and MNSCU has
programs in Mankato, Metro State and St Cloud. These programs should
be clearly thought through and then differentiated so the best
programs are available and they are focused on specific curriculums so
students can get the best education rather than having a number of
programs of lesser quality.
Dave Broden (10) (5)
(7.5) (7.5) (0)
Question 1: The approach of each
organization is clearly to address major changes and to be sensitive
to the changes that are driving decisions in higher education will
need to evolve to meet the needs and yet live within the funding
available and also be responsive to student capability to pay and to
obtain the desired education.
Question 2: Good idea but perhaps a
bit simplistic of a question-- a coordinated response yes--joint
meetings maybe depending on how the meetings would operate.
Question 3: Demonstrated ability is
definitely required but persons with the specific demonstrated ability
may be difficult to find. Leadership qualities must be the focus--with
the person having the understanding of the issues--sensitivity to
higher education issues and factors--leadership qualities if well
chosen can somewhat adapt to the job and situation.
Question 4: A two year and a four
year board approach may make sense. A better statement is to ask the
question how should higher education in Mn be organized for the future
and then when that is decided structure the board approach to adapt to
the organization and responsibilities established.
Question 5: Simply too much workload
and inability of any board to focus on management due to scale, size,
and scope. If two boards they must be required to work together, have
common objectives, share resources etc.
Tim Utz (5) (5) (2.5)
Question 1: The institutional
leadership is just recognizing the tide shift in education. Reduced
public funding will have huge affect on public education, forcing
restructuring how "business as usual" in higher education provides
services to the community.
Question 2: Coordination is good if
used to restore public support for education to within the State
constitution. Coordination for real change is good; coordination to
protect self preservation interests is not good.
Question 3: Yes, but the comments of
new leadership “….should be exclusively from academia…..” is of great
Question 4: More unconstitutional
government through expanding layers of educational management just
adds to the cost of education and public expenditures. In addition
this idea lowers quality, efficiency and management’s ability to
respond to environmental education changes.
Question 5: Persuade me the value of
David Gay (0) (0)
(7.5) (0) (0)
Question 1: The cost per student is
rising (tuition + state contributions) very fast and they have been
unsuccessful at containing costs. In fact their spending is barely
restrained. Colleges can do little to prepare students, that is
failure of K-12 system. Online universities are just competition that
a good "product" at a reasonable price will address. Why should
demographics effect post secondary education?
Question 2: If the U of M and MnSCU
boards are meeting, they are just trying to figure out more ways to
get more money out of the tax payers and students.
Question 3: They need to find a way
to deliver a quality education and lower the costs of a university
education to both the students and tax payers.
Question 4: Each college should have
its own board to meet the needs of the students at their respective
Question 5: Each college should have
its own board to meet the needs of the students at their respective
Cheryl Dickson (5)
(2.5) (10) (7.5) (7.5)
Question 1: The public has
little way of knowing what the systems are doing. Very likely no
Minnesotan who is not intimately involved with systems could answer
Question 2: No, the boards need not
meet, but they should keep one another well informed of plans and
Question 3: Both new system heads
need to be scholars, administrators, politicians, and visionaries.
They should be visible in the higher education community as change
Question 4: Unless the state of MN is
willing and able to underwrite parity in faculty salaries, benefits,
and work loads, I cannot see how the state universities and the U of
MN could merge. Furthermore, one portion of the faculty would be
unionized and the other, not. That, too, would cause significant
problems. Finally, it would re-create the hierarchy that was abolished
in the MnSCU merger.
Question 5: This would be a huge
task, but it may be the best way to work towards a comprehensive plan
for post-secondary education in Minnesota. At the present, two systems
often working at odds is not in the best interests of students or
taxpayers. It is critical for the planning to be done prior to merger,
rather than after. A Task Force could plan a new system of higher
education that includes grades 11 and 12. Members of the Task Force
could include system board members, academic affairs officers,
legislators, business and foundation people, national education
futures experts, and finance and technology people. Students are
transitory and have focused interests and should not be involved. The
planning should be for the long term and should include geographic,
demographic, and academic considerations.
Ray Cox (5) (8) (10)
hesitate to endorse one board for all institutions as it might be
unworkably large. I agree with David Olson that we need fundamental
change. One problem as I see it is we have created an environment
where many people tend to look at education as an entitlement. When
the state started supporting tuition for students directly through
grants we saw the huge increase in tuitions...since there was a third
party payer now involved. I believe this is a great part of our health
care cost increase as well, since the introduction of third party
payers in this area too. How do we de-couple from this third party
relationship and get back to a relationship between the students and
the schools? We also need to reinforce that education is something of
value for students and that it is totally theirs, just like investing
in a stock market, a student is investing in him/herself.
Rick Bishop (8) (10)
(10) (10) (5)
Carolyn Ring (6) (10)
(10) (5) (3)
With the many forces
effecting change in higher education this is an excellent time for new
leadership that acknowledges the need for change.
John S. Adams (4) (9)
(10) (7) (5)
John Milton (5) (10)
(10) (0) (10)
but when they meet, it must be
a meeting of equals . The U of M has never accepted that.
MNSCU will be trivialized, and
the U of M doesn't have to conform to state laws because of its prior
Question 5: But those of us who've tried to do this in the past were
stopped cold by the U of M insistence that it is not subject to MN
Alan Miller (4) (8)
(9) (3) (5)
(3)(8) (10) (1) (1)
and 5 look for the typical organizational fix vs. each making
disruptive educational change in each that responds to changing
demands from student's and employers with new teaching and business
models. The UMN research capability needs to be enhanced during the
change process. The scope of programs may need to be constrained and
strategically refocused. The number of educational institutions
probably needs to be reduced in the process.
Paul Hauge (7.5) (10)
(10) (2.5) (2.5)
Question 2: There are many common issues but
on balance it appears well to maintain two strong and separate
Question 4: I would think there would
be greater competition between those groups that the current setup.
Question 5: An extremely well done
Civic Caucus interview and you brought together two somewhat distinct
entities- education and business, but it highlights the need for the
two to work closely together. Thank you.
Jan Hively (7.5) (10)
(10) (7.5) (7.5)
I'd like to see a commitment to
birth-to-death, lifelong learning in Minnesota. That said, the
intermediate step of dividing responsibilities between 2 year and 4
year plus is a good one. Don't forget Community Education in this mix!
Mina Harrigan (2.5)
(10) (10) (7.5) (2.5)
Al Quie (1) (10) (10)
I am troubled by this
interview. The main problem is not revenue or administration or new
technology. The main problem is human interaction relationships. Our
society becomes more individualistic all the time. The higher
education systems need to study outcomes of students in life and back
up to the activities made possible by the resources and technology
before making administrative choices.
David Clinefelter (0)
(7.5) (10) (0) (10)
responses of the two chairs indicate that they don't understand the
powerful changes that are already happening to the way higher
education is provided and accessed by students.
Question 3: Increasing numbers of
adults are enrolling in college. Approximately 75% of college students
are now adults, but many college leaders still think of campuses
serving 18-22 year old students. An important criteria for new
presidents would be experience in institutions that serve a
preponderance of adult learners.
Question 4: A very important issue is
credit transfer. Most college students attend more than one
institution and end up not getting credit for work completed at
another institution when they graduate. This is a major waste of time
and money. An integrated system, under one board, increases the odds
of developing a seamless and effective credit transfer system.
Question 5: The more we can eliminate
redundancy the better, beginning with the boards.
Peter Hennessey (2.5)
(2.5) (7.5) (0) (0)
Question 1: The bad thing is that we
(they) are too preoccupied / enamored with "change." You always have
to answer, 1. from what, 2. to what, and 3. why? And 4. you have to
show that the proposed alternative(s) will actually work as intended.
Intentions alone are not enough. You have to think it through and be
certain that you are about to do some good, not even greater harm.
Question 2: The two institutions are
not serving the same clientele. There is little risk of duplicating or
overlapping their services, unless they deliberately set out to do
just that. Even then, competition would benefit both. But talking is
good as long as it is information and ideas, not orders, that are
being passed back and forth.
Question 3: Of course they have to
demonstrate a successful track record, but why qualify / restrict it
to "the above mentioned forces"? They have to prove ability to do the
job, the whole job, not just the supposedly imminent changes.
Question 4: Seems to me the
unification of all those small institutions into one monstrously large
system did not work. And it should be obvious why -- by kicking the
decision-making to ever higher levels, and by imposing ever more
uniform standards, you destroy any chance of local adaptation to local
needs, any chance of local initiative and experimentation. The key to
success is local control, local response to local needs, not a
top-down straight jacket. These two types of institutions are not
serving the same clientele. So this idea is better than the next one.
Question 5: Definitely not. This is
the worst idea. You cannot educate the public in freedom, democracy,
intellectual diversity and individual responsibility, using a
structure appropriate for and modeled after a dictatorship. The top
command necessarily seeks to propagate downward one idea, impose
one-size-fits-all solutions, and punish deviation and deviance.
Totally kills local initiative, response to local needs and
experimentation with alternative solutions.
Polly Bergerson (2.5)
(7.5) (10) (2.5) (7.5)
Question 1: It is disheartening when the
current leaders decide the work and decisions must be up to the new
leaders. There needs to be a bridge built in order to get to the other
Vici Oshio (7.5)
(7.5) (10)(5) (5)
Question 5: Sounds like it is time
for a joint committee including the two new leaders to gather and work
out an evolving design for higher education. At some point they'll
need to involve E-12 educators too. Let's congratulate them for asking
some of the tough questions.
Bob White (7.5)(7.5)
(10) (7.5) (0)
Question 5: Varieties of two-year
post-secondary are so great that a separate board is appropriate.
Ray Ayotte (2.5) (10)
(10) (5) (5)
Tom Spitznagle (3)
)(7) (8) (5) (5)
Wherever education matters are concerned there is always the cry for
change but no real effort to deal with the status quo. As one of the
speakers noted: Change the belief and behavior will follow.
Fred Senn (6) (10)
(10) (_) (7)
Tom Swain (5) (8)
(10) (8) (5)
Robert J. Brown (2.5)
(10) (10) (0) (10)
Question 1: I think they are trying but
their bureaucracies are large and virtually unmanageable. What will
make them work better is if there are financial incentives to improve.
The suggestion made by the Brandl-Weber idea of less institutional
subsidy coupled with increased student aid (both need based and a
voucher for all Minnesota citizens) would force the systems to deal
with their inefficiencies.
Question 4: We had a pretty good
system with separate boards before Roger Moe put them all together
(except for U of M.) It took a long time for the junior college and
tech school people to work together effectively and we still have the
problem of transfer of credits even with one board. Creating separate
boards at this time would just set us back a few more years.
Question 5: We would have had this
before if not for the arrogance of the U of M in bragging about its
unique status as having pre-dated the state constitution so that it
feels it is the fourth branch of state government. We ran into this
problem when trying to take extraneous matter out of the state
constitution in the 1970s. For example, we removed reference to the
fact that the prison had to be in Stillwater, but the U lobbied to
keep reference to it in the constitution believing it would preserve a
special status. If Stillwater had not chosen to have the state prison
instead of the university in the beginning ( thinking it would provide
more jobs and, possibly a better clientele) we might not have had the
ongoing problem with the U. The one board should be responsible for
both on site and distance learning education. Since there is research
to show that a mixed mode (part on site and part distance learning)
may be the best for at least some it would be a big mistake not to
have all options under one board.
Roger Heegaard (7)
(8) (10) (6) (5)
Charles Lutz (7) (9)
(9) (8) (5)
Lyall Schwarzkopf (7)
(9) (10) (8) (5)
Bert LeMunyon (5)
(7.5) (7.5) (2.5) (0)
Jim Keller (3) (8)
(8) (0) (0)