Board of Regents Forum in Brookings

[SUPERBUNNY]

I'm just curious about the forum. Can anyone give a report as to what went on, turnout, etc.?

SUPERBUNNY

[SUPERBUNNY]

Re: Board of Regents Forum in Brookings

I'm judging by the lack of response that there must have been a fairly light crowd at the forum.

SUPERBUNNY

[89rabbit]

Re: Board of Regents Forum in Brookings

I'm judging by the lack of response that there must have been a fairly light crowd at the forum.

SUPERBUNNY

A very large crowd filled the meeting room of the Days Inn. Extra seats were needed. The Regents opened the meeting by dispelling the notion that they in any way support enrollment caps.

[JimmyJack]

Re: Board of Regents Forum in Brookings

A very large crowd filled the meeting room of the Days Inn. Extra seats were needed. The Regents opened the meeting by dispelling the notion that they in any way support enrollment caps.

Good to hear. I didn't think it was a serious proposal, coming from the AD at Northern. I imagine the President at NSU wasn't terribly pleased about it.

[JackJD]

Re: Board of Regents Forum in Brookings

Many, many years ago (early 70s), SD Tech's leaders made a pitch to the Regents that all engineering should be consolidated at Tech. They were warned not to do that. At the meeting, SDSU's leaders were loaded with facts including such important points as SDSU's engineers had higher starting salaries, equal or better job placement, educated engineers at a lower cost etc.

When the meeting was concluded, it was clear that if a vote had to be taken, Tech should close and all engineering should have moved to SDSU.

Fortunately, with the great future of the Homestake Mine unfolding, we have good engineering schools on both sides of the State. Tech's location in Rapid is important for the success of the underground lab.

The Regents have a tough job trying to improve higher education with limited funding. That's why, for example, we won't see business degrees per se at SDSU (because Northern, Black Hills and USD give business degrees). Sometimes the institutions find workarounds (example: SDSU's economics degrees with certain business emphasis...in the workplace, those grads compete for the same jobs as grads of other institutions who has actual business degrees).

The Regents are making it quite clear they have no interest in imposing enrollment caps. They are more likely to approve raising entrance standards. For SDSU's leadership, an important consideration when talking about raising standards, is the role of a land-grant university. A land-grant university traditionally is supposed to be geared for providing education for more people, not just a select few. Should a land-grant be so exclusive that some students who are decent students, cannot get in due to high entrance standards? (Compare: USD has a different role and as noted by filbert on another thread, USD should probably be given somewhat free reign to set higher entrance standards so that it can be the best liberal arts school it can be.) SDSU maybe should consider raising entrance requirements slightly to see if it causes some students to shift to other institutions.

If SDSU continues to rapidly grow, can we afford to build dorms and classrooms when dorms and classrooms are not being utilized on other campuses? Will SDSU's growth slow and the school stabilize at around the 12,500 range as some predict?

NSU's AD, Bob Olson, was, no doubt, just throwing an idea out for discussion. An enrollment cap at SDSU may cause some students to shift to other state institutions but my sense is that the shift would be so small that we would all agree it is not worth the risk of stifling the great things going on at SDSU. NSU has to determine what is causing its enrollment drop. It's not going to get better by hobbling any other institution. Northern's candle won't glow brighter by blowing out SDSU's.

SDSU has a large enough alumni base in the State that ideas which propose limits on SDSU with artificial caps etc. will be non-starters. As a practical matter, SDSU has too much political power. SDSU hasn't pushed the power thing much but if some really bad idea like Olson's suggestion, seemed to gain traction, it would be stopped.

[JackJD]

Re: Board of Regents Forum in Brookings

Sheesh...can I give myself negative reputation points for long, rambling posts?

Go Jackrabbits!!

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: Board of Regents Forum in Brookings

Maybe long, but definitely not rambling.

[JimmyJack]

Re: Board of Regents Forum in Brookings

Sheesh...can I give myself negative reputation points for long, rambling posts?

Go Jackrabbits!!

How about some positive rep points for putting things into context?

[Nidaros]

Re: Board of Regents Forum in Brookings

Many, many years ago (early 70s), SD Tech's leaders made a pitch to the Regents that all engineering should be consolidated at Tech. They were warned not to do that. At the meeting, SDSU's leaders were loaded with facts including such important points as SDSU's engineers had higher starting salaries, equal or better job placement, educated engineers at a lower cost etc.

When the meeting was concluded, it was clear that if a vote had to be taken, Tech should close and all engineering should have moved to SDSU.

Fortunately, with the great future of the Homestake Mine unfolding, we have good engineering schools on both sides of the State. Tech's location in Rapid is important for the success of the underground lab.

The Regents have a tough job trying to improve higher education with limited funding. That's why, for example, we won't see business degrees per se at SDSU (because Northern, Black Hills and USD give business degrees). Sometimes the institutions find workarounds (example: SDSU's economics degrees with certain business emphasis...in the workplace, those grads compete for the same jobs as grads of other institutions who has actual business degrees).

The Regents are making it quite clear they have no interest in imposing enrollment caps. They are more likely to approve raising entrance standards. For SDSU's leadership, an important consideration when talking about raising standards, is the role of a land-grant university. A land-grant university traditionally is supposed to be geared for providing education for more people, not just a select few. Should a land-grant be so exclusive that some students who are decent students, cannot get in due to high entrance standards? (Compare: USD has a different role and as noted by filbert on another thread, USD should probably be given somewhat free reign to set higher entrance standards so that it can be the best liberal arts school it can be.) SDSU maybe should consider raising entrance requirements slightly to see if it causes some students to shift to other institutions.

If SDSU continues to rapidly grow, can we afford to build dorms and classrooms when dorms and classrooms are not being utilized on other campuses? Will SDSU's growth slow and the school stabilize at around the 12,500 range as some predict?

NSU's AD, Bob Olson, was, no doubt, just throwing an idea out for discussion. An enrollment cap at SDSU may cause some students to shift to other state institutions but my sense is that the shift would be so small that we would all agree it is not worth the risk of stifling the great things going on at SDSU. NSU has to determine what is causing its enrollment drop. It's not going to get better by hobbling any other institution. Northern's candle won't glow brighter by blowing out SDSU's.

SDSU has a large enough alumni base in the State that ideas which propose limits on SDSU with artificial caps etc. will be non-starters. As a practical matter, SDSU has too much political power. SDSU hasn't pushed the power thing much but if some really bad idea like Olson's suggestion, seemed to gain traction, it would be stopped.

JDJack:

These were excellent points and the comments about building dorms with expanding enrollment was a subject that President Chicoine commented on a while back, and if I recall correctly he felt that maybe SDSU needed to slow down for a bit and put more emphasis on research and increasing grad students. I think this is likely to happen and I expect admission requirements will probably be increased. Yes we are the Fighting Jackrabbits when the crisis involves negative changes to our institution. Its complimentary that the other institutions are trying to slow us down with the power play over the history of the institution. Over the 125 years of history, there have been many.