(11-29-2016 12:33 PM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  I gave a brief outline above but to flesh things out a little......

I'm sitting in the Admiral's Club at O'Hare waiting on a flight, so I may have to pick this up and finish it later.

1) He didn't do his homework. The higher ed system in Ohio became very unruly with a huge amount of waste and redundancy under Jim Rhodes. The reponse to that beginning with Celeste was to try and establish some centralized governance, stop the proliferation of programs (particularly doctoral programs) and let OSU reassert its flagship role. That not only continues but has picked up steam under every Governor since Celeste (including the one from Cincinnati ) with Fingerhut eventually reorganizing things into the USO , which has been continued under Kasich. Essentially, in calling for "multiple flagships," Ono was trying to roll back state policy that had been in place since the early 80s and had been continued under Democratic AND Republican Governors from almost every corner of the state (Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus and SE Ohio). You don't rush in and attempt to roll that back six months into the job AND attempt to do so by circumventing the legislature and Governor by going directly to the press. It was foolish, ill-conceived and ultimately ineffective. But, hey, it genested a bunch of press for Ono, which was probably the real reason for the gambit.

2) Cleveland. One of his main points was that Cleveland should join him in his crusade and they'd get a flagship too! Did he spend a single moment talking to Cleveland politicians, business leaders or the major media outlets? If he had he might havery discovered a few very easily learned facts. First, Ohio State has a huge amount of political support among the Cleveland establishment. Second, Cleveland doesn't want or need a state flagship university. They have Case and the Cleveland Clinic and it's doubtful that those two very powerful political entities would be too thrilled about local competition (or even Cincinnati competition). Third, the Cleveland establishment is just fine with their local public universities serving a largely regional and commuter role and the better students heading off to OSU or Miami.

I have to quit now, but there's more that I'll add later. His misreading of how Ohio structured their system in the late 1800s, his lack of reaching out to the other state University presidents and the colossal strategic mistake of attempting what should have been done at the end of his tenure in the first six months.

I'm very interested to hear more about the bolded part, in particular.

As a graduate of Case, I concur with most of what you said about Cleveland - OSU has as almost as much support in Cleveland as it does in Columbus. However, I'd add that Ono foolishly said that Cleveland should have a flagship, (rather than Northeast Ohio).

The only public school in Cleveland is Cleveland State. That's not only poor politics, it's also laughable. It'd be like promoting NKU as a competitor to Ohio State. NKU and CSU have very similar profiles, and NKU arguably has more political support than CSU.

Now if Ono had said that NE Ohio deserves a flagship, well then now we're talking - Kent or Akron would both be MUCH better candidates for flagship status than CSU. They're still way behind UC, but at least they have a respectable number of doctoral programs. Actually, the region would probably benefit greatly if one of them focused on elite undergrad education and the other focused on doctoral programs (similar to how Miami and UC have specialized in SW OH).

So, in his op-ed piece, Ono brought up a bunch of university pairs as examples of co-flagships: Michigan/MSU, Texas/A&M, Virginia/Tech. Again, here he's off in a couple of different ways. First, nobody would see these pairs as true co-anythings. There's a distinct hierarchy. Secondly, and most importantly, these are states that separated the traditional arts & sciences flagship university from the Land Grant (A&M) university after the passage of the Morrill Act in 1862. Other states didn't separate the two roles and combined them into a singular flagship model: California, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania.

That's the model that Ohio established with the founding of Ohio State. It's why the state turned down Ohio and Miami's requests for the Land Grant role, both of whom lobbied extensively for it. It's why Rutherford Hayes worked so hard to put Ohio State in Columbus rather than Springfield (where it would have been under direct influence of the state's ag interests) and the OSU board quickly passed resolutions expanding the curriculum into the Arts & Sciences as well as dropping the A&M name for the now loathed "The" Ohio State University--all of which caused a political uproar with the state's ag interests which is why OSU put that extension service in Wooster to throw them a bone and keep them from meddling in the Columbus campus. All of this culminated in 1906 with the Eagleson Bill in the Ohio legislature which established Ohio State as the state's flagship research university and barred other public universities from having Ph.D programs or conducting basic research. Less than a decade later, Ohio State was in the AAU.

Now, UC actually benefited from this and arguably would not be the same university had the state just given the land grant designation to Ohio or Miami. As part of the political wheeling and dealing and to get the Cincinnati legislators behind his vision for Ohio State, Hayes agreed to a law allowing municipal universities in cities with over 150K in population (which was only Cincinnati at the time). That allowed Cincinnati to disburse some endowed funds they were sitting on and cobble together several local colleges into what became the University of Cincinnati. And the Eagleson Act (which didn't limit UC) allowed UC to build up doctoral and research programs before the restrictions were lifted in the 60s with no competition from Miami, Ohio, BG or KSU. So, though we may hate on OSU, without their founding, it's highly unlikely that UC would exist in its present form.

As for the whole concept of "multiple flagships," I find it ridiculous. Does Toledo get a flagship? Dayton? Youngstown could sure use one. How about Miami and Ohio? They were first. The whole concept is ludicrous, and I think the other university Presidents saw through Ono pretty clearly that this wasn't about them and ALL about UC, which is why none of them took up the cause with him. He never spent any time lobbying them on UC's behalf and putting out a detailed plan as to how this might benefit their campuses.

So at the end of the day. He rushed in half-cocked after being on the job six months. He was either ignorant or willfully dishonest of the founding history and recent history of Ohio's system. He was similarly either ignorant or dishonest about his co-flagship examples being split A&S/Land Grant models. He didn't do any of the heavy lifting of presenting a well thought out plan and lobbying the various constituencies (other university President foremost) as to why they should support him. Instead, he wrote an op-ed piece, gave some interviews and shot out some tweets before the Governor told him to STFU. In the end, he accomplished nothing other than forcing the state to essentially go on record as saying that multiple or co flagships is a non-starter.

(11-30-2016 11:48 AM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  So, in his op-ed piece, Ono brought up a bunch of university pairs as examples of co-flagships: Michigan/MSU, Texas/A&M, Virginia/Tech. Again, here he's off in a couple of different ways. First, nobody would see these pairs as true co-anythings. There's a distinct hierarchy. Secondly, and most importantly, these are states that separated the traditional arts & sciences flagship university from the Land Grant (A&M) university after the passage of the Morrill Act in 1862. Other states didn't separate the two roles and combined them into a singular flagship model: California, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania.

That's the model that Ohio established with the founding of Ohio State. It's why the state turned down Ohio and Miami's requests for the Land Grant role, both of whom lobbied extensively for it. It's why Rutherford Hayes worked so hard to put Ohio State in Columbus rather than Springfield (where it would have been under direct influence of the state's ag interests) and the OSU board quickly passed resolutions expanding the curriculum into the Arts & Sciences as well as dropping the A&M name for the now loathed "The" Ohio State University--all of which caused a political uproar with the state's ag interests which is why OSU put that extension service in Wooster to throw them a bone and keep them from meddling in the Columbus campus. All of this culminated in 1906 with the Eagleson Bill in the Ohio legislature which established Ohio State as the state's flagship research university and barred other public universities from having Ph.D programs or conducting basic research. Less than a decade later, Ohio State was in the AAU.

Now, UC actually benefited from this and arguably would not be the same university had the state just given the land grant designation to Ohio or Miami. As part of the political wheeling and dealing and to get the Cincinnati legislators behind his vision for Ohio State, Hayes agreed to a law allowing municipal universities in cities with over 150K in population (which was only Cincinnati at the time). That allowed Cincinnati to disburse some endowed funds they were sitting on and cobble together several local colleges into what became the University of Cincinnati. And the Eagleson Act (which didn't limit UC) allowed UC to build up doctoral and research programs before the restrictions were lifted in the 60s with no competition from Miami, Ohio, BG or KSU. So, though we may hate on OSU, without their founding, it's highly unlikely that UC would exist in its present form.

As for the whole concept of "multiple flagships," I find it ridiculous. Does Toledo get a flagship? Dayton? Youngstown could sure use one. How about Miami and Ohio? They were first. The whole concept is ludicrous, and I think the other university Presidents saw through Ono pretty clearly that this wasn't about them and ALL about UC, which is why none of them took up the cause with him. He never spent any time lobbying them on UC's behalf and putting out a detailed plan as to how this might benefit their campuses.

So at the end of the day. He rushed in half-cocked after being on the job six months. He was either ignorant or willfully dishonest of the founding history and recent history of Ohio's system. He was similarly either ignorant or dishonest about his co-flagship examples being split A&S/Land Grant models. He didn't do any of the heavy lifting of presenting a well thought out plan and lobbying the various constituencies (other university President foremost) as to why they should support him. Instead, he wrote an op-ed piece, gave some interviews and shot out some tweets before the Governor told him to STFU. In the end, he accomplished nothing other than forcing the state to essentially go on record as saying that multiple or co flagships is a non-starter.

I vote this as the best post on this board -- ever.

The desire to achieve "flagship" status is essentially tilting at windmills. What we need to be demanding is proportional representation and funding in the Ohio state legislature based upon our impact on Ohio's economy and higher learning status, not a title or designation that is outdated in today's academic community.

(11-30-2016 01:34 PM)crex043 Wrote:  The desire to achieve "flagship" status is essentially tilting at windmills. What we need to be demanding is proportional representation and funding in the Ohio state legislature based upon our impact on Ohio's economy and higher learning status, not a title or designation that is outdated in today's academic community.

Can you elaborate on that a bit? I'm not sure what you mean by proportional representation in the legislature.

As for funding, Ohio, since the mid-60s, has been extremely (arguably self-defeatingly) equitable in funding. The state subsidy has been based solely on a head count and an Ohio resident enrolled in college or a grad program generates the exact same state funding whether they're at OSU, UC or Cleveland State. It's, at least for the last half cemtury a myth, that OSU receives more money from the state than other public universities.

Actually, I posted numbers here a few months ago that shows Ohio State receives over twice the funding per in-state student than any other university in Ohio.

(11-30-2016 02:19 PM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 01:34 PM)crex043 Wrote:  The desire to achieve "flagship" status is essentially tilting at windmills. What we need to be demanding is proportional representation and funding in the Ohio state legislature based upon our impact on Ohio's economy and higher learning status, not a title or designation that is outdated in today's academic community.

Can you elaborate on that a bit? I'm not sure what you mean by proportional representation in the legislature.

As for funding, Ohio, since the mid-60s, has been extremely (arguably self-defeatingly) equitable in funding. The state subsidy has been based solely on a head count and an Ohio resident enrolled in college or a grad program generates the exact same state funding whether they're at OSU, UC or Cleveland State. It's, at least for the last half cemtury a myth, that OSU receives more money from the state than other public universities.

I think he means, "What we need to be demanding in the Ohio state legislature is proportional representation and funding..."

Are you sure about the bolded part? I always thought that the state also handed out funds for new departments/programs, and that these were disproportionately going to OSU due to their flagship status.

If not, then what is the practical difference between the treatment of the "flagship," the "historic 4 corners" (Miami/BG/OU/Kent), and the "urban" schools (the other 7, where UC is lumped in)? I know that was the setup 10 years ago but I couldn't find it online anymore so have they abandoned it?

Another question: UC has an independent board of trustees and an independent endowment. So can the state *really* forbid us from having a PhD program if in a field if we want to do it?

(11-30-2016 07:20 PM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  Actually, I posted numbers here a few months ago that shows Ohio State receives over twice the funding per in-state student than any other university in Ohio.

That's closer to my understanding of the budget allocations as well. OSU remains the 800 pound gorilla when it comes to the state budget. As I recall UC is a distant second but above the rest of the state system. I don't know other states' comparative numbers but I'm guessing those with two flagships (IN, IA, MI) have more parity. UC was late to the party joining the state system in the 1970's and has been trying to play catch up ever since. Sadly, few in the state house view UC as Ohio's other major research power. Given the funding disparity, UC's results in academics, research, fund raising and even athletics are quite remarkable.

(11-30-2016 07:25 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 02:19 PM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 01:34 PM)crex043 Wrote:  The desire to achieve "flagship" status is essentially tilting at windmills. What we need to be demanding is proportional representation and funding in the Ohio state legislature based upon our impact on Ohio's economy and higher learning status, not a title or designation that is outdated in today's academic community.

Can you elaborate on that a bit? I'm not sure what you mean by proportional representation in the legislature.

As for funding, Ohio, since the mid-60s, has been extremely (arguably self-defeatingly) equitable in funding. The state subsidy has been based solely on a head count and an Ohio resident enrolled in college or a grad program generates the exact same state funding whether they're at OSU, UC or Cleveland State. It's, at least for the last half cemtury a myth, that OSU receives more money from the state than other public universities.

I think he means, "What we need to be demanding in the Ohio state legislature is proportional representation and funding..."

Are you sure about the bolded part? I always thought that the state also handed out funds for new departments/programs, and that these were disproportionately going to OSU due to their flagship status.

If not, then what is the practical difference between the treatment of the "flagship," the "historic 4 corners" (Miami/BG/OU/Kent), and the "urban" schools (the other 7, where UC is lumped in)? I know that was the setup 10 years ago but I couldn't find it online anymore so have they abandoned it?

Another question: UC has an independent board of trustees and an independent endowment. So can the state *really* forbid us from having a PhD program if in a field if we want to do it?

I thought I heard something about how a lot of the legislature has OSU ties, either as a graduate or otherwise. I could be off base. Your phrasing also works.

(11-30-2016 07:20 PM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  Actually, I posted numbers here a few months ago that shows Ohio State receives over twice the funding per in-state student than any other university in Ohio.

That is much closer to the truth, however the direct subsidy is roughly the same regardless of the school. The funding model has transitioned to a retention based model, which allows schools with multiple admission entities (branch campuses, protected outreach programs, etc.) to falsely buffer a school with the resources to do so. Effectively, branch campuses do not count towards the retention of a main campus, but do count towards total headcount. This means that allowing lesser qualified students into branch campuses still allows an institution to collect a per student subsidy, however, they do not count against the main campus retention bonus (roughly doubling a per student subsidy per four years of retention) if they do not matriculate through years. This is why some schools are actively opening more and more branch campuses through the past 5 years (BGSU, OSU, KSU, UC and OU), however schools like OSU have more resources and effective presence to pull more students to their branch campuses.

(11-30-2016 08:56 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 07:20 PM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  Actually, I posted numbers here a few months ago that shows Ohio State receives over twice the funding per in-state student than any other university in Ohio.

That is much closer to the truth, however the direct subsidy is roughly the same regardless of the school. The funding model has transitioned to a retention based model, which allows schools with multiple admission entities (branch campuses, protected outreach programs, etc.) to falsely buffer a school with the resources to do so. Effectively, branch campuses do not count towards the retention of a main campus, but do count towards total headcount. This means that allowing lesser qualified students into branch campuses still allows an institution to collect a per student subsidy, however, they do not count against the main campus retention bonus (roughly doubling a per student subsidy per four years of retention) if they do not matriculate through years. This is why some schools are actively opening more and more branch campuses through the past 5 years (BGSU, OSU, KSU, UC and OU), however schools like OSU have more resources and effective presence to pull more students to their branch campuses.

tOSU doesn't pull, they actively push students to their branch campuses.

It is very common now if a student applies to tOSU Main Campus as an UG that they will be assigned to a branch campus for the first year or two before they can to take classes on Main Campus.

You have to really want to be a Buckeye to put up with a year or two in booming Marion, Mansfield, Lima or Wooster...

(11-30-2016 09:42 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 08:56 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 07:20 PM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  Actually, I posted numbers here a few months ago that shows Ohio State receives over twice the funding per in-state student than any other university in Ohio.

That is much closer to the truth, however the direct subsidy is roughly the same regardless of the school. The funding model has transitioned to a retention based model, which allows schools with multiple admission entities (branch campuses, protected outreach programs, etc.) to falsely buffer a school with the resources to do so. Effectively, branch campuses do not count towards the retention of a main campus, but do count towards total headcount. This means that allowing lesser qualified students into branch campuses still allows an institution to collect a per student subsidy, however, they do not count against the main campus retention bonus (roughly doubling a per student subsidy per four years of retention) if they do not matriculate through years. This is why some schools are actively opening more and more branch campuses through the past 5 years (BGSU, OSU, KSU, UC and OU), however schools like OSU have more resources and effective presence to pull more students to their branch campuses.

tOSU doesn't pull, they actively push students to their branch campuses.

It is very common now if a student applies to tOSU Main Campus as an UG that they will be assigned to a branch campus for the first year or two before they can to take classes on Main Campus.

You have to really want to be a Buckeye to put up with a year or two in booming Marion, Mansfield, Lima or Wooster...

Don't forget Newark. Another jewel

UC should open up another branch-- somewhere like Liberty Twp or Middletown or hell even up in the Springfield area.

(11-30-2016 07:25 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 02:19 PM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 01:34 PM)crex043 Wrote:  The desire to achieve "flagship" status is essentially tilting at windmills. What we need to be demanding is proportional representation and funding in the Ohio state legislature based upon our impact on Ohio's economy and higher learning status, not a title or designation that is outdated in today's academic community.

Can you elaborate on that a bit? I'm not sure what you mean by proportional representation in the legislature.

As for funding, Ohio, since the mid-60s, has been extremely (arguably self-defeatingly) equitable in funding. The state subsidy has been based solely on a head count and an Ohio resident enrolled in college or a grad program generates the exact same state funding whether they're at OSU, UC or Cleveland State. It's, at least for the last half cemtury a myth, that OSU receives more money from the state than other public universities.

I think he means, "What we need to be demanding in the Ohio state legislature is proportional representation and funding..."

Are you sure about the bolded part? I always thought that the state also handed out funds for new departments/programs, and that these were disproportionately going to OSU due to their flagship status.

If not, then what is the practical difference between the treatment of the "flagship," the "historic 4 corners" (Miami/BG/OU/Kent), and the "urban" schools (the other 7, where UC is lumped in)? I know that was the setup 10 years ago but I couldn't find it online anymore so have they abandoned it?

Another question: UC has an independent board of trustees and an independent endowment. So can the state *really* forbid us from having a PhD program if in a field if we want to do it?

Yes, the state has approval over programs that are offered at various schools. I am on curriculum committees at both UC and Miami. The state even has approval authority over the classes offered.

(11-30-2016 08:56 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 07:20 PM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  Actually, I posted numbers here a few months ago that shows Ohio State receives over twice the funding per in-state student than any other university in Ohio.

That is much closer to the truth, however the direct subsidy is roughly the same regardless of the school. The funding model has transitioned to a retention based model, which allows schools with multiple admission entities (branch campuses, protected outreach programs, etc.) to falsely buffer a school with the resources to do so. Effectively, branch campuses do not count towards the retention of a main campus, but do count towards total headcount. This means that allowing lesser qualified students into branch campuses still allows an institution to collect a per student subsidy, however, they do not count against the main campus retention bonus (roughly doubling a per student subsidy per four years of retention) if they do not matriculate through years. This is why some schools are actively opening more and more branch campuses through the past 5 years (BGSU, OSU, KSU, UC and OU), however schools like OSU have more resources and effective presence to pull more students to their branch campuses.

UC has not opened a new branch campus within the past 5 years. Both UC and OSU (and really everyone else) have been actively pushing students towards their Regional campuses because of the benefits with respect to state and federal reporting, ranking services, etc.

(12-01-2016 09:31 AM)QSECOFR Wrote:  Yes, the state has approval over programs that are offered at various schools. I am on curriculum committees at both UC and Miami. The state even has approval authority over the classes offered.

Is that level of control typically in other states? I've been told it is done to ensure credits transfer between state schools etc.

This is outside of my corner of the university system so I could be off base completely.

(12-01-2016 04:46 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  UC should open up another branch-- somewhere like Liberty Twp or Middletown or hell even up in the Springfield area.

Great news - Miami would love to hand UC its Middletown and Hamilton campuses!

There should be some control. If you consider the California system to be the gold standard for American public higher education, well, that's a very structured and regulated system. Cal State campuses are legally forbid from doing basic research or offering Ph.D programs. The law and medical schools are also restricted to the the UC campuses. In essence, the Eagleson Bill was the California Master Plan before the California Master Plan was. Even within the UC system, there is a hierarchy. Does one really think it would go over well if the Chancellor of UC-Davis started writing op-ed pieces demanding co-flagship status with Berkeley? No, he'd probably be out of a job by the end of the year. The problem with Ohio's system was that when Rhodes threw out the Eagleson Bill, he went way overboard. All of a sudden, every school was free to start adding doctoral programs and trying to turn themselves into Berkeley. Everybody got a trophy, and if everybody got to be special then nobody (including Ohio State) was special.

I agree that Ono making a big deal out of being named a co-flagship was nonsense. The time when the state making such a designation meant something for the future of the university was a century ago. But again, that's where I see his lack of concrete leadership. He went for the hollow, splashy route most likely to get his name in the newspapers.

Look, whatever one's hate level to Ohio State, people need to understand that any major decisions regarding Ohio higher ed are going to go through them. They may not get their way on everything, but they have more than enough power to kill something they see as a threat. They got burned really badly in the 60s and 70s by Miami and OU and Jim Rhodes, and they've spent a generation building up the political capital to ensure that it never happens again. UC is not going to be a co-flagship with Ohio State for reasons both historical and contemporary that I've laid out--and quite frankly, if you really break down the rankings (not just US News but the global rankings, National Research Council's once-a-decade doctoral rankings etc) and other factors (such as National Academy members, AAU membership, lack of a Comprehensive Cancer Center), UC has a hell of a long way to go before they could start making any such argument.

What Ono should have done is try to make common cause with Ohio State to eliminate poorly ranked, redundant Ph.D programs, get rid of one or two of the public law schools (Ohio has more state law schools than California does) and so on. Position UC to be the Va Tech to OSU's UVA. The resources freed up would strengthen the programs that deserve to remain. Yes, Ohio State would have the lion's share of them, but UC would have, and by a large margin, the second most. So people need to decide what it's really about. Is it primarily to hurt Ohio State or to build up UC? Then you add in Miami as an undergraduate focused school like William & Mary, and you'd be well on your way to undoing the mess created in the 60s and 70s. That would be your University of California equivalent. The rest would be the Cal State system. That's how you change the system in a way that it both improves UC (probably ensures that it gets AAU membership down the road) and probably provides a more efficient, cheaper system for Ohio taxpayers.

But that would have been hard. That would have required actual difficult, behind-the-scenes lobbying over the course of several years. It would have made most of the public university Presidents mad at him, and they wouldn't have posed for selfies with him anymore. No, Ono took the cheap, easy publicity route of attempting to poke a stick at the bear in Columbus (always a sure fire way to get applause in Cincinnati) and accomplished nothing. I can guarantee that the OSU President was on the phone to Kasich, the legislative leadership in both parties and editorial boards around the state the following week. And what happened, Kasich came out and publicly shot Ono down and the state went on record saying the idea was dead in the water.

I'd like to see the numbers on funding. I couldn't find the post in a search. I know certain majors get more funding based on expense of instruction (i.e. more to engineering than history) but that the number was the same for all schools. Do they include the biennial capital appropriations? Ohio State gets the largest of that, but one would really need to dig into the numbers and see if their share is disproportionately high relative to either their budget or their share of state enrollment. Then again, I'm someone who thinks that OSU, UC and Miami should be funded differently than the rest. Rather than focus on OSU getting more than UC; the focus should be on UC getting more than UT, OU, BG, YSU, WSU, CSU, UA and KSU.

(11-30-2016 08:44 PM)crex043 Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 07:25 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 02:19 PM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 01:34 PM)crex043 Wrote:  The desire to achieve "flagship" status is essentially tilting at windmills. What we need to be demanding is proportional representation and funding in the Ohio state legislature based upon our impact on Ohio's economy and higher learning status, not a title or designation that is outdated in today's academic community.

Can you elaborate on that a bit? I'm not sure what you mean by proportional representation in the legislature.

As for funding, Ohio, since the mid-60s, has been extremely (arguably self-defeatingly) equitable in funding. The state subsidy has been based solely on a head count and an Ohio resident enrolled in college or a grad program generates the exact same state funding whether they're at OSU, UC or Cleveland State. It's, at least for the last half cemtury a myth, that OSU receives more money from the state than other public universities.

I think he means, "What we need to be demanding in the Ohio state legislature is proportional representation and funding..."

Are you sure about the bolded part? I always thought that the state also handed out funds for new departments/programs, and that these were disproportionately going to OSU due to their flagship status.

If not, then what is the practical difference between the treatment of the "flagship," the "historic 4 corners" (Miami/BG/OU/Kent), and the "urban" schools (the other 7, where UC is lumped in)? I know that was the setup 10 years ago but I couldn't find it online anymore so have they abandoned it?

Another question: UC has an independent board of trustees and an independent endowment. So can the state *really* forbid us from having a PhD program if in a field if we want to do it?

I thought I heard something about how a lot of the legislature has OSU ties, either as a graduate or otherwise. I could be off base. Your phrasing also works.

So what, we're going to limit the number of grads that an individual school can have in the legislature? I'm sorry, but you can't stop Cleveland legislators from looking out for Ohio State. You can't stop rural legislators (whose counties have seen a direct economic impact from OSU's ag extension services for over a century) from looking out for Ohio State.

And if you really want to dig down into OSU's dominance in the legislature, you can start with that latter point. It has a lot more to do with it than free football tickets.

(12-01-2016 04:46 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  UC should open up another branch-- somewhere like Liberty Twp or Middletown or hell even up in the Springfield area.

Actually ALL the Ohio public universities should fold their branch campuses into the community college system. The entire notion is ludicrous. We have a state community college system, so why do we have a parallel system where half a dozen state universities operate their own essentially in-house community college systems.