2009 Symposium Responses to LTIFS Recommendations

Summary of Participant Responses to the Session on Curricular Efficiency and Effectiveness

LTIFS Recommendation # / # of TableReporters Who Selected this Recommendation / Concerns/questions/suggestions
1. ExCom to determine goals/establish 10-year plan for managing faculty mix/establish campus-wide review of programs / No reporters
2. Establish non-profit / No reporters
3. Setting retention and completion targets / 3 / - Additional study to understand specifically why various groups of students leave or stay at PSU
- Implement more support services for students where needed.
4. 12-kmonth academic year / 8 / - Give faculty a choice of which quarter to take off
- How do you compensate faculty—like summer session?
- How do we handle semester transfers?
- It increases access with flexibility
- What added pressure does this add to admissions/registrars/financial aid
- Greater research opportunities
- More efficient use of classrooms
- Difficult to get faculty to teach nights, weekends, summer
- Will it be difficult to fill the classes?
5. Accelerated baccalaureate/and other programs, including online / 6 / - Re-task Summer Session to do online.
- This would help us move toward competency based learning.
- Expand online offerings
- Potential to accelerate graduation
- Better use of physical space
- Greater flexibility
- Reduces community/alliance with PSU
- Faculty training is needed
- Better use of Fridays is needed
6. and 7. Leasing operations/alternative use of space/cap and trade / 2 / - Decisions should be made based on academic as well as fiscal issues
- There must be consequences for overspending
- #7 could drive actions related to #’s 4 and 5 also
8. Set capacity utilization goals / No reporters
9. Classroom utilization target (80%) / No reporters
10. Gain access to more large classrooms / No reporters
11. Work with community colleges to ensure the educational goal of 40/40/20. / No reporters

Town Hall Discussion - Concerns/questions/suggestions that are indicative of the most frequent participant responses:

  • Does “excellence” mean “research and abandonment of access?”
  • What is meant by excellence? What excellence are we prioritizing—research, graduate, undergraduate, community engagement?
  • Excellence for what group of students?
  • Keep focus on access and retention and define our excellence there.
  • Where is access in the LTIFS recommendations?
  • Focus on assets, not deficiencies. Access has defines us.
  • Define what we mean by access, student success, excellence.
  • Are we willing to commit to excellence and accept consequences of higher tuition and fewer students?
  • Where is excellence in teaching and learning in this presentation?
  • If we raise admission standards (and probably tuition), will we couple it with more financial aid?
  • Have we embraced the access mission to the detriment of other missions?
  • How do we ensure diversity if we cap enrollment or privatize?
  • Does continued unrestricted growth make fiscal sense?
  • Is the proposed regional tax base an improvement over the state model? How do we know?
  • Forget the boasting of enrollment size – it’s killing the faculty and staff.
  • We must do a better job at retaining students—need more support for students.
  • Must consider the high teaching capacity of adjuncts and their contributions. What do we do for them?
  • If we are moving to a customer (student) pays model, we must better understand the demands/needs of our targeted students (Convenience? Quality? Variety of offerings? Time commitment?)
  • Can PSU “walk the walk” in operating on a business model? Policies need to make sense with business practices.
  • What does it cost to educate a student? Do we know? Does spending more mean better-educated students?
  • Is post secondary education a public good? Who should fund it?
  • Is the market model a good fit with “public” institution?
  • Recognize different faculty roles and make differentiated appointments.

(over)