813 replies to this topic

[zman9810]

thewizard16, on 03 December 2011 - 01:02 PM, said:

I've had some conversations with the powers that be there recently and I really disagree with a couple of your points, for reasons I'll try to explain.

First comment- The university doesn't, and shouldn't, want to keep getting larger indefinitely. 25,000 is not necessarily a hard cap, but it is a spot where they want to catch their breath and evaluate their long-term goals. They don't want to be another Florida or Texas of the university world, they want to be big enough to compete on a research and academic level but small enough students still feel connected to the community. Unless you want the university to be of unlimited size (not possible, or a good idea, in my opinion and the administrators I've spoken with agree), you have to cap enrollment, and that means turning away people no matter what. As I'm sure you realize, people are turned away already due to academic standards (what is admissible at some of our other state institutions is not admissible at Fayetteville, nor should it be), so this would be no different. If you want the UofA to be the flagship, premier public institution for the state, it needs to have high standards that ensures the graduates it produces are capable and intelligent alumni that represent the university and the state well. It can't be open door. Some people can't or won't be able to cut it at the UofA that may be fine at some other schools, and it would be irresponsible of the University not to make sure those students are at more appropriate places of education. If that means turning them away to make sure they don't fail out in debt or with a GPA so low they can't get into another reputable university, so be it. It's not elitist, it's what is best for the students, the state, and the institution.

Second comment- No, raising academic standards to cap enrollment is not wrong. Look at any other flagship institution for any other state... You have to find a size where you can accomplish the goals of the university and offer a top notch education, and you have to make sure you admit students that will be able to graduate and succeed. Honestly, there are a lot of people that get admitted right now that don't really have any business being there from an academic standpoint. You shouldn't be able to just walk into the flagship state university. If you're not ready (and even at current academic admissions standards, there are many that we know will have problems or need remedial courses their first semester and aren't ready for the demands the UofA will place on them), go to a community college or other university first, get an academic record established and get yourself on track, and then apply as a transfer student if the UofA is where you really want to be.

State flagship universities should be the best in their state. They should have the best possible faculty and offer a top-notch education. And if you're admitting anyone that wants to go, you're not doing justice to your other students that worked hard to get there and you're not doing right by your state that expect the best from their flagship or the taxpayers that help support it. The UofA has pretty mediocre/low standards for admission compared to most premier state schools, and it is only logical that the standards will have to rise a bit over time to make sure the hardest working students in the state can get the best education without having to go elsewhere. You can't want the UofA to continue to increase in prominence, quality, and be a top notch national university and still be opposed to standards being raised. The two are incompatible.

I think we have differing ideas on what role the university should play in the state. In a state that has a very low percentage of residents with a college education I think providing one for as many as possible should be the priority. After all, it is a taxpayer funded institution. Telling residents that we want them to pay for the school and then start making it inaccessible to them by capping enrollment is wrong. One factor that officals need to seriously consider is that by capping enrollment they may also be capping state funding. When colleges such as ASU, UCA, UALR , etc started taking in the excluded students those schools may go before the state legislature asking for more money. It is only reasonable to think that the legislature would shift funds to where enrollment is increasing and away from where it has been capped.

You mention the University of Texas (enrollment 51,000) and the University of Florida (enrollment 50,000) as schools that the University of Arkansas doesn't want to emulate but in the latest US News college rankings those schools are ranked 45 and 58 respectively. The University of Arkansas is ranked 132. It seems that enrollment size is not necessarily a drawback to excellence as a school.School officals may want to look at how those schools handle a larger enrollment size to get ideas on how to handle the increase here.

Raising academic standards is not a negative in itself but when it is being discussed solely as a means to exclude prospective students from the state's flagship public university it is wrong in my opinion. Leave the high academic standards for the elite private schools that can afford to be exclusive. We don't want to try to be a MIT or Stanford or even a Vanderbilt or Rice. The university's role should be to provide a quality education for as many students that want one and manage to meet the standards in place and scrape together the funds to attend.

Edited by zman9810, 04 December 2011 - 06:47 PM.

[iowhogs]

Seems like a fundamental question of more degrees that mean less vs more meaningful degrees for less people (that's a crude way to put it but essentially the question at hand). I don't think raising the minimum ACT to a 21 would really hurt too much or exclude too many bright young people.

[wmr]

There's an article in the DemGaz today about a new 5 story mixed-use addition to Brough along McIlroy Avenue that is about to get underway, as well as a new building for offices of the Housing department.

They also say that Hillside Auditorium will be completed Aug 2012.

[strmchsr77]

wmr, on 05 December 2011 - 12:17 PM, said:

There's an article in the DemGaz today about a new 5 story mixed-use addition to Brough along McIlroy Avenue that is about to get underway, as well as a new building for offices of the Housing department.

They also say that Hillside Auditorium will be completed Aug 2012.

Here is the article from NWAOnline: http://www.nwaonline...ch-ua-20111205/

[thewizard16]

Unfortunately I don't have time to go into this in the detail I'd like, but I'll try to address your major points.

zman9810, on 04 December 2011 - 06:43 PM, said:

I think we have differing ideas on what role the university should play in the state. In a state that has a very low percentage of residents with a college education I think providing one for as many as possible should be the priority. After all, it is a taxpayer funded institution. Telling residents that we want them to pay for the school and then start making it inaccessible to them by capping enrollment is wrong. One factor that officals need to seriously consider is that by capping enrollment they may also be capping state funding. When colleges such as ASU, UCA, UALR , etc started taking in the excluded students those schools may go before the state legislature asking for more money. It is only reasonable to think that the legislature would shift funds to where enrollment is increasing and away from where it has been capped.

I think we do too. I don't think your idea of what the university should be is compatible with the term "flagship" university. The flagship should be the highest standard of education in the state, not a degree factory. As the UofA increases in prominence, so does the reputation of the state of Arkansas. If the UofA is considered a top institution of higher ed, then our best students don't leave the state for their education and we attract the best and brightest from out of state too. That brings in the best minds and talent to the state, and serves the state better than simply churning out more college graduates, in my opinion. That's a broadly painted picture of course, but I think it's important to consider.

As far as taxpayer funded, so are all the other state run institutions. There are 11 taxpayer funded 4 year public colleges in the state and over 20 2 year public colleges. If you get down to the percentage of revenue state funds represents, the UofA receives less funding than many other institutions. Taxpayer dollars fund about 28% of Fayetteville's revenue, compared to 45-50% (depending on year) at ASU. This is not said to trivialize the taxpayer's role in funding the flagship, but simply to point out that it's not even the biggest source of funds for them. There are also plentiful examples of other state flagships that are inaccessible to even some of the best students in the state despite being "taxpayer funded", like the University of Texas, Texas A&M, University of California, University of Iowa, and UNC to name a few. Being taxpayer funded doesn't mean you should be able to attend anywhere just because you pay taxes, if that were the case, I should get any tax dollars I or my family paid that went to ASU, Henderson, other UofA campuses, UCA, etc. back since I didn't get to go to any of those schools.

Quote

You mention the University of Texas (enrollment 51,000) and the University of Florida (enrollment 50,000) as schools that the University of Arkansas doesn't want to emulate but in the latest US News college rankings those schools are ranked 45 and 58 respectively. The University of Arkansas is ranked 132. It seems that enrollment size is not necessarily a drawback to excellence as a school.School officals may want to look at how those schools handle a larger enrollment size to get ideas on how to handle the increase here.

I was referring to their size, not their academics. Both are fine institutions, but much larger than the UofA had the space or desire to become. I would much prefer the UofA to become more like the University of Iowa or the University of Georgia. They're big, but not massive, and are well ranked and respected academically. They have a competitive admissions policy (which is what I think the UofA needs to move to instead of a strict cut-off/automatic admissions policy like they have now) which ensures the hardest working students get admitted while still taking other circumstances into consideration.

Quote

Raising academic standards is not a negative in itself but when it is being discussed solely as a means to exclude prospective students from the state's flagship public university it is wrong in my opinion. Leave the high academic standards for the elite private schools that can afford to be exclusive. We don't want to try to be a MIT or Stanford or even a Vanderbilt or Rice. The university's role should be to provide a quality education for as many students that want one and manage to meet the standards in place and scrape together the funds to attend.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Raising academic standards is always a means to exclude prospective students. When you have more students that desire to attend a university than the institution thinks it can appropriately educate, you raise standards to ensure the students are successful at the institution and you're providing that education to the best qualified students. I don't want the UofA to be a MIT or Stanford and I don't think they ever will, but I think it's best for the state, the alumni, the donors, and the taxpayers if the UofA moves to a competitive admissions policy and focuses on increasing educational quality while keeping the quantity as plentiful as possible.

[thewizard16]

strmchsr77, on 05 December 2011 - 12:55 PM, said:

Here is the article from NWAOnline: http://www.nwaonline...ch-ua-20111205/

Thanks for this link. I'd heard about this, but hadn't read much about it yet. This is exactly what I would like to see more of at the UofA. I mentioned a while back that UAMS is always adding more floors to existing buildings to increase space with the existing limited campus footprint and I wished the UofA would do something similar. I don't think a two story Housing office building is smart though... The administration building is filled to the gills, Silas Hunt isn't big enough for the demands placed on it, and there are a lot of administrative offices currently in Hotz being displaced by the renovation that aren't branches of housing. Why not build a new, large administrative building to replace some of these facilities/provide new office space and allow some of the old buildings to be replaced or converted to academic or housing purposes? It seems like it would be in the best interests of the university for the long term.

[comreguy]

thewizard16, on 06 December 2011 - 01:14 AM, said:

Thanks for this link. I'd heard about this, but hadn't read much about it yet. This is exactly what I would like to see more of at the UofA. I mentioned a while back that UAMS is always adding more floors to existing buildings to increase space with the existing limited campus footprint and I wished the UofA would do something similar. I don't think a two story Housing office building is smart though... The administration building is filled to the gills, Silas Hunt isn't big enough for the demands placed on it, and there are a lot of administrative offices currently in Hotz being displaced by the renovation that aren't branches of housing. Why not build a new, large administrative building to replace some of these facilities/provide new office space and allow some of the old buildings to be replaced or converted to academic or housing purposes? It seems like it would be in the best interests of the university for the long term.

In case you haven't noticed, the departments don't play well with others. They all like to, and probably feel like they need to, be separated from other departments. Very political...

[Mith242]

strmchsr77, on 05 December 2011 - 12:55 PM, said:

Here is the article from NWAOnline: http://www.nwaonline...ch-ua-20111205/

One thing I read in the article that caught my eye.  Mike Johnson, the university's associate vice chancellor for facilities said "Let's not just do a one or two story addition to Brough."  As I said, "yes about time" to myself.  Glad someone at the university gets it.     Lately seems like the university has really aimed low on building heights on most recent developments.

[thewizard16]

Mith242, on 07 December 2011 - 05:38 PM, said:

One thing I read in the article that caught my eye.  Mike Johnson, the university's associate vice chancellor for facilities said "Let's not just do a one or two story addition to Brough."  As I said, "yes about time" to myself.  Glad someone at the university gets it.     Lately seems like the university has really aimed low on building heights on most recent developments.

Mike's a nice guy, and I'm glad to hear he's finally putting some pressure towards increased density into campus planning.

comreguy, on 06 December 2011 - 10:13 AM, said:

In case you haven't noticed, the departments don't play well with others. They all like to, and probably feel like they need to, be separated from other departments. Very political...

Yeah, unfortunately I've experienced that first hand. I will say it was getting a bit better by the time I left, and I hope it will continue to. This is a case where I feel like the admin should just step in and say "We're not doing that." to some 2 story office building that will take up valuable land inefficiently.

[zman9810]

thewizard16, on 06 December 2011 - 01:08 AM, said:

Unfortunately I don't have time to go into this in the detail I'd like, but I'll try to address your major points.

I think we do too. I don't think your idea of what the university should be is compatible with the term "flagship" university. The flagship should be the highest standard of education in the state, not a degree factory. As the UofA increases in prominence, so does the reputation of the state of Arkansas. If the UofA is considered a top institution of higher ed, then our best students don't leave the state for their education and we attract the best and brightest from out of state too. That brings in the best minds and talent to the state, and serves the state better than simply churning out more college graduates, in my opinion. That's a broadly painted picture of course, but I think it's important to consider.

As far as taxpayer funded, so are all the other state run institutions. There are 11 taxpayer funded 4 year public colleges in the state and over 20 2 year public colleges. If you get down to the percentage of revenue state funds represents, the UofA receives less funding than many other institutions. Taxpayer dollars fund about 28% of Fayetteville's revenue, compared to 45-50% (depending on year) at ASU. This is not said to trivialize the taxpayer's role in funding the flagship, but simply to point out that it's not even the biggest source of funds for them. There are also plentiful examples of other state flagships that are inaccessible to even some of the best students in the state despite being "taxpayer funded", like the University of Texas, Texas A&M, University of California, University of Iowa, and UNC to name a few. Being taxpayer funded doesn't mean you should be able to attend anywhere just because you pay taxes, if that were the case, I should get any tax dollars I or my family paid that went to ASU, Henderson, other UofA campuses, UCA, etc. back since I didn't get to go to any of those schools.


I was referring to their size, not their academics. Both are fine institutions, but much larger than the UofA had the space or desire to become. I would much prefer the UofA to become more like the University of Iowa or the University of Georgia. They're big, but not massive, and are well ranked and respected academically. They have a competitive admissions policy (which is what I think the UofA needs to move to instead of a strict cut-off/automatic admissions policy like they have now) which ensures the hardest working students get admitted while still taking other circumstances into consideration.


I don't understand what you're saying here. Raising academic standards is always a means to exclude prospective students. When you have more students that desire to attend a university than the institution thinks it can appropriately educate, you raise standards to ensure the students are successful at the institution and you're providing that education to the best qualified students. I don't want the UofA to be a MIT or Stanford and I don't think they ever will, but I think it's best for the state, the alumni, the donors, and the taxpayers if the UofA moves to a competitive admissions policy and focuses on increasing educational quality while keeping the quantity as plentiful as possible.

To me flagship means the same thing it has always meant when referring to the Fayetteville campus- the most recognizable college in the state. It means that it has the greatest number of degree programs and is generally the first choice of high school students when they are considering where to attend. It isn't the Ivy League of schools- that would be one of the smaller private schools. Again- in a state with a low percentage of it's residents having a degree it is more important to help more people obtain a quality education and degree.- hopefully we agree that the University of Arkansas as it is now provides a quality education.  That will help the reputation of the state much more than having a small percentage having higher GPA's while others are excluded from the campus- that just leads to more of an economic divide within the state. Degree factory is just a derogatory term for a shool that produces a lot of graduates and isn't elitist.

According to the Chancellor's Funding the Flagship page "The University of Arkansas depends on tuition and fees for 43% of its education and general budget. The State of Arkansas provides 45% of the education and general budget." Not sure where you got the 28% figure. I'm not saying that anyone should be able to attend- obviously there have to be academic standards and students have to have a way to pay for their education but capping enrollment  doesn't serve the students or state well. I will make the point again that the discussion of raising standards solely for the  purpose of excluding students is wrong. At this point the discussion of raising standards is being driven by the desire to cap enrollment- not by a sudden need to raise academic achievement levels. As the Texas and Florida examples show it is possible to have a high level of academic achievement and a large enrollment size.

I agree with another poster when I say that after a point enrollment size has no affect on whether or not one feels part of a community on campus. When I attended I certainly did not feel a part of a university community but rather a community within my department and to a lesser extent, college. The group of students I felt a part of actually had much resentment of the athletic and business programs because of what we saw as preferrential treatment for them- it certainly did not have a community feel to it. Whether the Fayeteville campus is 14,000 or 35,000 the idea of community is for the recruiters to use for their work.

[thewizard16]

It's important to keep in mind that 25,000 is probably not a hard cap, but if they don't make some sort of cap soon, they will have too many students for the space, faculty, and housing they currently have. They need to cap for at least a few years to get enough space ready to expand any further. Total size goals I've heard thrown around range from 28,000 to 35,000, although some do prefer a hard cap at 25,000. I can't remember if I pointed that out before we started discussing all this or not. I know we don't agree on the mechanisms or reasons for the cap, and that's perfectly fine, I just wanted to make sure I mentioned that.

zman9810, on 07 December 2011 - 08:40 PM, said:

According to the Chancellor's Funding the Flagship page "The University of Arkansas depends on tuition and fees for 43% of its education and general budget. The State of Arkansas provides 45% of the education and general budget." Not sure where you got the 28% figure.

I see that too, but it's not correct according to any actual numbers I can find. This is taken straight from an article written by Dr. Gearhart:

"At the University of Arkansas, overall state appropriations last year accounted for less than $120 million of our total budget of more than $528 million." That would make state appropriations 22.7% of the budget.
http://chancellor.uark.edu/16776.php

From the "Quick Facts" on the Chancellor's page:

Operating Budget Revenues

2008-2009 Revenues - $562,676,710

• Other Income $41,950,239
  
• Sales & Services $18,155,166
  
• Auxiliary Enterprise $118,527,583
  
• State Appropriation $161,988,517
  
• Tuition & Fees $125,688,331
  
• gifts, Grants, & Contracts $90,953,113
  
• Endowment/Investment Income $5,413,761

Even if all of the "other income" were from the state (it isn't), that'd still only be 30%.

This is probably the most detailed, and therefore accurate, source: http://www.uasys.edu...s_e-version.pdf
It shows a total of just under $200 million in state appropriations against a total annual budget of $560 million, which would still be 35.7%.



I honestly believe that statement on the chancellor's landing page is incorrect, based off the numbers I've found and what I've been told by administrators.

[zman9810]

Here are some photos of current projects on campus. The first is the addition to Vol Walker- there is an earlier shot from the same angle of the site further back in this topic. The second is of the Pi Beta Phi gate and campus walk extension. This will be a much larger project than I thought it would be- several mature trees were taken out for it. The last is the Hillside Auditorium project which should turn out to be an amazing structure. it should add to the green space on campus while adding much needed large classrom space. It will be almost all underground and hardly noticeable- i normally advocate for more vertical buildings but this is an ideal structure for this location
.

[Mith242]

Cool, thanks for the pics.  

[zman9810]

The university has bought the Southwestern Energy (Arkansas Western Gas) buildings in Fayetteville. These are the two brick two story buildings just east of North College at the Milsap intersection. They have approx 60,000 sq. ft. between them and the university paid $6 million. They will be used to help house employees displaced by construction on campus. Sounds like a good move for both the university and the local commercial real estate market. Anything that fills vacant space is good although I think there are still company employees in the buildings. Hopefully they just relocate to another building in town and not out of the area- we don't need to lose those jobs.

[wmr]

I think removing a few trees (gasp!) in the campus core might rejuvenate that area visually.  Those old buildings are actually quite nice, and they've been hidden by trees in some instances.  I'm all for trees, but hopefully they will be replanted a little further from the buildings in a more strategic way so they don't "hide" the buildings themselves.  As the university re-vamps those old buildings and replaces those awful dark modern windows, those buildings take on a new signifcance and beauty.  I never noticed how nice some of those old buildings were until the Chemistry Building was put back to its original exterior appearance.

[zman9810]

wmr, on 05 February 2012 - 12:07 AM, said:

I think removing a few trees (gasp!) in the campus core might rejuvenate that area visually.  Those old buildings are actually quite nice, and they've been hidden by trees in some instances.  I'm all for trees, but hopefully they will be replanted a little further from the buildings in a more strategic way so they don't "hide" the buildings themselves.  As the university re-vamps those old buildings and replaces those awful dark modern windows, those buildings take on a new signifcance and beauty.  I never noticed how nice some of those old buildings were until the Chemistry Building was put back to its original exterior appearance.

I don't think most people are against removing trees when it is necessary for a major project but if it is posible to save mature trees it is in our best interests to do so. To take out a 100 year old tree and replace it with a sapling isn't replacing that tree - it is bandaiding a scar on the landscape. Fayettevile's tree ordinance is frustraing at times and doesn't apply to the university's property but serves the city well. In the case of trees in the central part of campus IMO most were planted and have grown into their intended role. i will say that there are a few that were so badly damaged by the ice storm that even though they are still alive they should be removed and replaced.

[wmr]

The U of A is going to break ground on "Founders Hal" which will be a five-story mixed-use building attached to the SE side of Brough.  The upper floors will be housing, while he middle floor will expand Brough, and the first floor is going to be retail.

Anybody heard about this?

[thewizard16]

wmr, on 16 February 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

The U of A is going to break ground on "Founders Hal" which will be a five-story mixed-use building attached to the SE side of Brough.  The upper floors will be housing, while he middle floor will expand Brough, and the first floor is going to be retail.

Anybody heard about this?

Yes, it was mentioned to me in passing when I was visiting friends at the UofA in December. I saw a prospective plan of it at one point but I honestly don't recall many details about it. I do think it's a good idea and a great location for a project like that, but as I told them, five stories is probably too short for such prime real estate.

[wmr]

I think the focus is going to be on keeping buildings lower in order to respect the dominance of the historic core.  The news release I read about the building somewhere said it will "resemble Gregson Lodge" which is a good thing, IMO.  We need more architectural cohesion on the campus.  5-stories at least isn't two or three.  So there's that.

[thewizard16]

wmr, on 16 February 2012 - 11:21 PM, said:

I think the focus is going to be on keeping buildings lower in order to respect the dominance of the historic core.  The news release I read about the building somewhere said it will "resemble Gregson Lodge" which is a good thing, IMO.  We need more architectural cohesion on the campus.  5-stories at least isn't two or three.  So there's that.

True. And it is nice that they're finally paying some attention to blending architectural styles on campus and respecting the look of the historic core (well, except the addition to Vol Walker, but we'll see how that turns out). What makes less sense is being worried about height in a spot that's adjacent to two 9/10 story buildings and a 7 story building to where you'll only build a five story structure. It's at least better than the inefficient waste of land that Maple Hill is, which is a decision I believe they're already kicking themselves for a bit.