(05-31-2016 05:25 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Maybe they're literally referring to saving money from not having to pay for accrediting three times.

You may be right, but there may also be other reasons. I honestly don't know. But coming up with far-flung conspiracy theories is a blast.

My money is on it having to do with competitive video game teams. They're trying to pool the schools together so they have a shot at winning a NC I something other than being cold.

(05-31-2016 05:27 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  ...and NYU started out as a quaint gathering of rural buildings in downtown Manhattan.

(Your point is probably right and is very valid. I'm just messing with you.)

I just pray the lanscape doesn't totally resemble a major city everywhere one day. I actually like some small towns that have some character, that aren't just full of chain restaurants and McMansion houses.

(05-31-2016 05:37 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(05-31-2016 05:27 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  ...and NYU started out as a quaint gathering of rural buildings in downtown Manhattan.

(Your point is probably right and is very valid. I'm just messing with you.)

I just pray the lanscape doesn't totally resemble a major city everywhere one day. I actually like some small towns that have some character, that aren't just full of chain restaurants and McMansion houses.

...like Houston

Exactly.

I like it around here but I will not lie to you that there are some small towns I've been to that have more soul and character than Houston though even they are starting to lose their charm by doing stuff like adding a Wal-Mart Super Centers or grocery store.

(05-31-2016 02:39 PM)LUSportsFan Wrote:  

(05-31-2016 01:14 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(05-30-2016 09:44 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Regardless, Fairbanks is nothing to Alaska in a post-oil world. No reason for it to have the state's flagship public university. It can have a two-year college and an agriculture extension station.

UAF has over 10,000 students. LOL at making a 10,000 student university into a 2 year college.

It's not too laughable based on a quick search of the Houston area. According to USN&WR, Houston Community College has an enrollment of 57,978 . The Lone Star College campuses have an enrollment of 64,072. Blinn College has an enrollment of 18,561. That's three just in the greater Houston area. http://www.usnews.com/education/communit...ston%2C+TX

Quick searches of other areas also showed numerous community colleges with enrollment greater than 10,000. Using the same source, the Los Angeles area lists 36 colleges meeting the criteria. The list would get really long, but it appears that a community or junior college with enrollment greater than 10,000 is fairly common.

I have to admit that I was surprised at the number of students some of the Junior/Community Colleges have. I knew about HCC, Lone Star, and Blinn, but had never checked other parts of the country. A lot of the students go on to get bachelors degrees at four year universities and colleges. For example, Lamar and Lone Star just announced a partnership. http://www.lonestar.edu/news/27047.htm The new Lamar/Lone Star agreement is one of many for Lone Star. http://www.lonestar.edu/academic-programs-transfer.htm Blinn and Texas A&M also have a partnership. http://blinnteam.tamu.edu/

Several JC from what I read in and around Phoenix have so many students. The combined enrollment of one with different branches is over 118,000 students.
Phoenix College, Gateway, Scottsdale, Glendale, Rio Salado, South Mountain, Paradise Valley, Chandler-Gilbert, Estrella, Mesa, and Paradise Valley of Black Mountain. Gateway have 2 campuses. They are under one umbrella called Maricopa County Community College District.

(05-31-2016 04:31 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-31-2016 12:12 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(05-31-2016 11:21 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  That's fine, if it was just going to be an agriculture college. But since it was also set up as the public university, it would seem that it should've been in Anchorage from the start.

But I guess the New England public flagships did the same thing. All six of them are out in the country. Though I'm not sure if Vermont, New Hampshire or Maine had (or even have, to this day) much of an urban center.

Burlington and Portland certainly count and Portland is not terribly far from Boston, though not close by New England standards and not enough to be considered even in the CSA. The same with Manchester, which is even closer to Boston and technically in its CSA.

The reason most of these schools are in rural locations and small towns is because it was idealized by the Founding Fathers that major universities be located on the countryside away from the masses, the educated urbaners and politics of the city. This is why Thomas Jefferson, the founder of the University of Virginia, saw to it that his school was in a place (Charlottesville) that had little outside influence and even today, UVA is in a lightly populated city and among the most isolated major universities in the country, certainly among the P5 schools. Ironically, Fairbanks is in an isolated location but among the most urban places in its state.

Yes, this used to be the ideal. The idea was that the peace and quite of nature would enhance the educational process.

Even many of today's urban campuses originally started out on the very edges of their respective cities in what were then rural or far out suburban areas. In Ohio alone, Ohio State and CWRU both followed this model, and Cincinnati was similar in that it was located in a large urban park (although since then the campus has enlarged and today the majority of the original park is part of the campus).

Plus the land was cheaper. Arkansas State when it was First District State Agriculture School was three miles outside of town. Now you have to drive three miles from campus to get out of the town.

(05-31-2016 06:59 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-31-2016 02:39 PM)LUSportsFan Wrote:  

(05-31-2016 01:14 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(05-30-2016 09:44 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Regardless, Fairbanks is nothing to Alaska in a post-oil world. No reason for it to have the state's flagship public university. It can have a two-year college and an agriculture extension station.

UAF has over 10,000 students. LOL at making a 10,000 student university into a 2 year college.

It's not too laughable based on a quick search of the Houston area. According to USN&WR, Houston Community College has an enrollment of 57,978 . The Lone Star College campuses have an enrollment of 64,072. Blinn College has an enrollment of 18,561. That's three just in the greater Houston area. http://www.usnews.com/education/communit...ston%2C+TX

Quick searches of other areas also showed numerous community colleges with enrollment greater than 10,000. Using the same source, the Los Angeles area lists 36 colleges meeting the criteria. The list would get really long, but it appears that a community or junior college with enrollment greater than 10,000 is fairly common.

I have to admit that I was surprised at the number of students some of the Junior/Community Colleges have. I knew about HCC, Lone Star, and Blinn, but had never checked other parts of the country. A lot of the students go on to get bachelors degrees at four year universities and colleges. For example, Lamar and Lone Star just announced a partnership. http://www.lonestar.edu/news/27047.htm The new Lamar/Lone Star agreement is one of many for Lone Star. http://www.lonestar.edu/academic-programs-transfer.htm Blinn and Texas A&M also have a partnership. http://blinnteam.tamu.edu/

Several JC from what I read in and around Phoenix have so many students. The combined enrollment of one with different branches is over 118,000 students.
Phoenix College, Gateway, Scottsdale, Glendale, Rio Salado, South Mountain, Paradise Valley, Chandler-Gilbert, Estrella, Mesa, and Paradise Valley of Black Mountain. Gateway have 2 campuses. They are under one umbrella called Maricopa County Community College District.

Cincinnati State has about 11,000 students. It's 2-year and has a lot of joint programs with the University of Cincinnati (making it easy to transition to a 4-year degree). It's also located less than 2 miles from UC.

Also, I'd guess that 20% of SDSU students do their first 2 years at Grossmont Community College (which has about 18,000 students). Significant numbers also attend San Diego City College (15,000 students) and Palomar College (26,000 students). They're all a part of the Community College System of California, which supposedly has 2.4 million students.

(05-31-2016 04:09 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-31-2016 04:01 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I want to back up.

Part of the debate is going with a single accreditation. Happened to have a chance to talk a university system president today and mentioned the UAlaska situation of folding all the accreditation under one school to save money. He said there isn't much savings to doing that and wondered if something internal was at play.

That is what this is about, putting 3 schools into 1 single accredited institution. I'm pretty sure, there would be savings because to maintain 3 locations is more expensive than 1 location and having 1 athletic program instead of 2 would be even more savings because to fly 1 program instead of 2 would basically cut the total cost in half in addition to any travel subs they are paying out for 2 Alaska teams.

But they aren't going to shut down the three locations.

Accreditation would be part of the administration overhead that could be reduced, but it would be only part.

That is, there is certain to be a range of wasteful admin duplication between the three institutions, because generating functionally pointless "needs" to hire more senior administrators at inflated salaries is a big part of what drives university administration over the longer term. There's a lot more money to be found in admin featherbedding than in the cost of running the athletic department ... the athletic department is just a diversionary tactic in this, which are convenient scapegoats for the rampant administrative cost inflation with plagues US higher education.

What senior level admin will this move enable eliminating?

Each campus is still going to need something equivalent of a director/president/chancellor. Then there's going to be positions for the board and overall president of the University of Alaska. Etc. Might make for more positions, not less.

I wonder if they do merge the schools? Could this also give them enough cash to pool to go D1? They would have to go into the WAC if they do, and both Alaska schools have been rumored candidates for the WAC.

The University of Alaska system will not be going to the WAC, as Alaska doesn't have near the oil revenue and production is way down.

If it wants more DI sports, it can start men's volleyball, women's hockey, and M and W water polo, which DII doesn't sponsor.

(06-01-2016 07:36 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  What senior level admin will this move enable eliminating?

Each campus is still going to need something equivalent of a director/president/chancellor.

Only if you decide that it does. If you decide that it doesn't, then there is a system president or chancellor and campus vice presidents or vice chancellors.

Quote: Then there's going to be positions for the board and overall president of the University of Alaska. Etc. Might make for more positions, not less.

But that is not where the big duplication of admin staff is located, You have three Registrars, three heads of offices for equal opportunity, three heads for admissions, three heads for IT, three heads for student aid, three heads for accreditation, etc. And each of those have to have enough staff to run their own operation in each of those areas.

Restructure those into single departments with a small branch operation center in the other campuses, your already into the millions of reduces salary costs annually.

Now, you could of course end up spending as much or more money ... it depends on it being seriously pursued as a cost cutting exercise, rather than being allowed to be another academic admin circle jerk in which all the administrators get together and agree that, yes, they are all doing things that are essential to the University mission as defined in the mission statement that spent endless committee hours in crafting.

I understand the hypothesis, but I don't accept it at face value.

Each of those staff should be having a full workload, currently. Putting the three universities under one name doesn't remove the workload.

I understand, you are saying it does. No need to explain that. I get it.

(06-02-2016 08:21 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I understand the hypothesis, but I don't accept it at face value.

Each of those staff should be having a full workload, currently. Putting the three universities under one name doesn't remove the workload.

Actually, though, it does, that's the main point that I am making. A part of the workload in each and every one of the positions I cited involves putting together the reporting for the University to the Federal government, and if there is only one University, there is only one report to put together in each area. Part of the reporting workload does not change, since it involves information gathering that will still have to take place, but part of the reporting workload, such as vetting the report for compliance with this or that requirement, gets to be done once by one person or group rather than three times by three people or three groups.

Now, administrators will always create more administrative work when given the freedom to do so, which is why it's not automatically a saving. It needs to be done by someone pushing back effectively against work-generation by academic administrators, otherwise the savings will just be soaked up by administrative workload inflation.

No need to explain that. I get it.