RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Re: State Farm Stays

[Jonathan King <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, Spurling, Shannon wrote:

[snip]

> So, all in all, it's a little different than your example from
> Louisiana. It's more closer in structure to the University of
> California and California State systems. The Missouri State
> Universities are governed by the state and the coordinating board
> for higher education, I believe. They don't seam to be as tightly
> coupled as the University of Missouri system, who has a distinct
> central governing body. SMSU is wrangling for the top spot of the
> Missouri State group, similar to how UMC is seen as the main
> campus for the University of Missouri system.

OK, so you mentioned California back there.  Now everybody should
listen up, because they basically got this model right, while we
didn't.  In California, they have 30 million people and (currently)  
9 UC campuses.  They also have a number of Cal State campuses.  The
Cal States are really and truly and continually reminded that they
have a more limited mission than the UC campuses.  People pretty
much respect the hierarchy, although San Diego State has had to be
pistol-whipped in my recent memory.  The UC system campuses are
intended to be premier research universities.  At least 6 of the 9
achieve this (Berkeley, UCLA, UCSD, UC Irvine, UC Davis, UCSF [grad
only]), one is debatable (UC Santa Barbara)  while 2 others aren't
really there yet (UC-Riverside and UC Santa Cruz (a strong undergrad
school, though).  Here in Missouri, we will soon have five UM system
campuses (Columbia, Rolla, KC, St. Louis, and Marysville), but we're
still struggling to get or keep *one* of these in the top 50 public
research institutions.  Given our population ratio, we should only
"expect" to have 1 or 2 UM schools that could resemble UC schools;  
trying to keep 4 or 5 in the air almost certainly is not the best
strategy.  For the other 4-year schools in the state, it's clear
that Truman State (relatively strong academics) and SW Missouri
State (large size, big city) are not like the others.  If'n I were
God, my long term plan would be to absorb Rolla's programs (and best
faculty, etc.) into one of the other UM campuses (probably St.  
Louis, given its location), turn UMKC into primarily a grad-level
campus, close down NWMSU, make SWMSU into Missouri State (serious
sports teams, enormous student body) and crank up the academics at 
both Truman State and UMC (and UMSL, too, if that absorbs Rolla).

Of course, this will never happen.

Meanwhile:

> When they don't concentrate on tooting their own horn and work at
> something, they usualy come out on top. When all they do is sit
> there and toot their own horn, the other campuses come out better
> in those areas. Problem is, sometimes it just easier to throw your
> weight around and make every one feel and perform as miserable as
> you. :-)

I'm not sure I understand you here.  Right now, UM-C has identically
one top-25 National program in Arts and Sciences (Math) and maybe as
many as two top-50 programs (Psych and Biological Sciences).  The Ag
school is strong, but this *is* the Midwest. Rolla has well-rated
engineering programs.  Most of the other programs I know about
system-wide are not even close to the national leaders, whether they
are based in Columbia or elsewhere.  Tooting their horns or not,
nobody much is listening outside of the state.  If this does NOT
change, then the politics mean basically nothing.  I'm not 
optimistic, though.  Probably the single weirdest move the UM system 
could make was to add another academically mediocre campus.  So 
that's what we are doing.

jking


_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion