|
|
Post by 00hmh on Dec 18, 2016 19:36:06 GMT -6
The JoAnn problem is not solved by moving it one level higher...Universities need a set of strategic goals, but colleges are so diverse in function that one size fits all doesn't work well either. Business College and Fine Arts College are different. Both JoAnn and Hall seem to worship at the altar of "national recognition" and want good PR. Where they differ slightly is the devotion to what the Indiana legislature wants. Hall is much more about that. JoAnn was very good at finding something the University could do well, that would please the legislators, selling it to them. Hall seems more interested in finding out what the politics are, what they want and letting them set the agenda, toeing the party line provided by the politicians. The legislature loves the Ivy Tech vocational model, reducing BSU in stature. BSU has had the goal of establishing a niche below the land grant schools but above ISU, IUPUI, IPFW and being comparable to the higher mid major institutions around the country. The metrics Hall names like 4 year graduation and job placement are obviously measuring desirable outcomes in general terms. Still, all of that is dependent on students and their families and needs, and many of our real success stories will have a hard time meeting those goals in 4 years. The university needs some independence to retain academic quality and a broader mission than just jobs. Reducing programs that might lead to graduate study or which are not broadly speaking vocational changes us into IvyTech+ Since the legislature is consistently cutting support, why should we pay MORE attention? What ? It appears your inferiority complex is on display. Where do you get that? Your post is unresponsive to any of the points I made. I am proud of BSU and what we have done, don't want that to stop as we become more a second class citizen in higher education, just above the junior college. Do you really think the legislature and gvernor wants BSU to in any way challenge IU and PU? Is the idea of a Board of Regents at the state level or a Board following the governor's directives at the state level bodes well for us reaching our potential? Students, with their tuition, who are freely attracted to the University we have built, and donors giving their money freely because they appreciate the results, don't seem to me to want this direction. They increasingly fund the University as state support is cut. Tell me why the University which answers to those who are paying so much of the costs, should be expected to give up autonomy to a greater degree as the state funds operations less? Why exactly should we do that and how do we gain? |
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Dec 18, 2016 20:07:42 GMT -6
It's hard to take a one-sided article at face value.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Dec 18, 2016 23:37:18 GMT -6
It's hard to take a one-sided article at face value. Most of it is just reporting the email contents and while it's possible the article exaggerates Hall's actions, the conflict between BSU and the legislature with respect to models for higher education is real. The legislature is both micromanaging things on many fronts AND cutting or freezing support while costs go up. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2016 6:06:22 GMT -6
Oh please, Jo Ann flushed tens of millions of dollars down the toilet in an attempt to add some green energy cred to her PERSONAL resume. How naive are you ? Is Hall overstepping his boundaries, yes. However to say Jo Ann was interested in the long term goals of Ball State is beyond stupid. She was looking toward her next position the day she started here. Unfortunately for her and the University she screwed things up so bad no one would hire her. In the end all she did was piss off alumni and reveal herself as a vapid self-aggrandising clown. There was no doubt ego and self interest. My statement says as much. What I said and will stand behind was that her self interest and that of the University happened to dovetail on the issue of independence and defining long term goals for BSU at odds with the prevailing politicians idea of centralized control which will destroy much of what is great about BSU. That is a critical issue to the future for us. If you think the legislature's interest in dismantling BSU and transforming it is going to end up a big plus for BSU, you are nuts. I am no fan of the geothermal, but would prefer JoAnn in charge to the yahoos from IU and Purdue in the legislature who would sell us out, or the direction they want to go for this university which has far more potential than serving as Ball Vocational U. Oh please, the legislature isn't attempting to set itself up as the politburo of state universities. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2016 6:17:30 GMT -6
What ? It appears your inferiority complex is on display. Where do you get that? Your post is unresponsive to any of the points I made. I am proud of BSU and what we have done, don't want that to stop as we become more a second class citizen in higher education, just above the junior college. Do you really think the legislature and gvernor wants BSU to in any way challenge IU and PU? Is the idea of a Board of Regents at the state level or a Board following the governor's directives at the state level bodes well for us reaching our potential? Students, with their tuition, who are freely attracted to the University we have built, and donors giving their money freely because they appreciate the results, don't seem to me to want this direction. They increasingly fund the University as state support is cut. Tell me why the University which answers to those who are paying so much of the costs, should be expected to give up autonomy to a greater degree as the state funds operations less? Why exactly should we do that and how do we gain? The vast majority of your original post is nothing but paranoid, "we are being picked on" unsubstantiated supposition. Ball State's self inflicted maladies far outweigh anything the legislature or governor could concoct. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Dec 19, 2016 7:23:13 GMT -6
It is objective fact what percentage of our budget comes from the state compared to the past.
It is also quite objective how ICHE and legislative action are forcing BSU and others to make educational changes the institution would not make and forcing policy centrally.
The idea of creating a state Board of Regents replacing Trustees is being discussed.
There is politics involved in this if not Politburo.
You are in denial if you think these are not real issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Dec 19, 2016 7:31:57 GMT -6
It's hard to take a one-sided article at face value. Most of it is just reporting the email contents and while it's possible the article exaggerates Hall's actions, the conflict between BSU and the legislature with respect to models for higher education is real. The legislature is both micromanaging things on many fronts AND cutting or freezing support while costs go up. Email from who? Someone with an axe to grind, obviously. Based on some things that have happened in the past several years, I'm not surprised BSU leadership is under a microscope. And why shouldn't more of the cost of a college education be shouldered by the students? They're the ones getting the most out of it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2016 7:57:32 GMT -6
Is Ball State's recent past also partially at fault, yes without a doubt. The legislature loves the Ivy Tech vocational model, reducing BSU in stature. BSU has had the goal of establishing a niche below the land grant schools but above ISU, IUPUI, IPFW and being comparable to the higher mid major institutions around the country. Purdue is the only land-grant school in Indiana. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2016 8:22:35 GMT -6
It is objective fact what percentage of our budget comes from the state compared to the past. It something like 45% compared to 60%, but it's the same all over the country. Sheesh.................... |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Dec 19, 2016 11:45:19 GMT -6
It is objective fact what percentage of our budget comes from the state compared to the past. It something like 45% compared to 60%, but it's the same all over the country. Sheesh.................... Let's see now. 45% is LESS funding than 60%, I think. Which means the University should NOT be controlled centrally by legislative fiat MORE now than before. Across the country some states do have Central Board of Regents, but of course some do not. And that would greatly change the degree to which we can develop unique programs and break out from the other mid tier Indiana schools. Sheesh.........your comment doesn't change any of the arguments here |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Dec 19, 2016 11:52:02 GMT -6
Email from who? Someone with an axe to grind, obviously. Based on some things that have happened in the past several years, I'm not surprised BSU leadership is under a microscope. And why shouldn't more of the cost of a college education be shouldered by the students? They're the ones getting the most out of it. It is an email that gives one sides point of view. But the "rebuttal" doesn't address the issues of political control of the Board. Every trustee is a governor's appointment, and except for the Ball Family trustee, and maybe the student, who are less likely to be influenced by statehouse politics, all are therefore under considerable risk to be governed by the governor... The leadership of the Board doesn't seem to be under scrutiny, and the scrutiny seems to take leadership out of the hands of the President, not simply review it. Good point about students paying, but should they not have more of the control and be able to make consumer decisions based on that expenditure to a greater degree rather than a lessor one? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2016 12:11:43 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2016 10:16:50 GMT -6
It something like 45% compared to 60%, but it's the same all over the country. Sheesh.................... Let's see now. 45% is LESS funding than 60%, I think. Which means the University should NOT be controlled centrally by legislative fiat MORE now than before. Across the country some states do have Central Board of Regents, but of course some do not. And that would greatly change the degree to which we can develop unique programs and break out from the other mid tier Indiana schools. Sheesh.........your comment doesn't change any of the arguments here Wow 45% is less than 60% , yep that proves your point . |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Dec 20, 2016 21:03:13 GMT -6
Sheesh, you can say, but it is an argument I don't see you able to answer.
Why should the state run the show? More than in the past?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Dec 21, 2016 7:29:31 GMT -6
Sheesh, you can say, but it is an argument I don't see you able to answer. Why should the state run the show? More than in the past? Well, they're footing a large part of the bill. If you don't want state meddling, don't take state money. Regardless, I think this is more about Hall being a conservative Republican than anything else. |
|
