Here you have it. The words straight from The Chairman; Gene Powell. I an excellent interview by Jake Silverstein of the Texas Monthly the Chairman expressed his thoughts on Higher education, the UT controversy, and how MOOCS are changing the face of America. A good read without the usual biased negative media slant on the regents.
Let’s take a temperate step back from the “shooting war” between the University of Texas regents and the president of UT-Austin. Read More
Lawmakers, Observers React to Tense UT System Meeting by Reeve Hamilton of Texas Tribune
Longtime employees of the University of Texas System said they could not recall a split vote on the board of regents, which has traditionally settled differences behind closed doors and presented a unified front. That changed on Wednesday, catching higher education observers and even some lawmakers off guard. Read More
New reform framework unites critics and supporters of ‘seven breakthrough solutions’
In much-anticipated remarks to the University of Texas Board of Regents Thursday, Chancellor Francisco Cigarroa laid out a broad nine-point plan to streamline operations across the system, increase accountability and expand science and medical education around the state.
The “Framework Action Plan” received unanimous support from all nine regents, and lawmakers and groups that have strongly disagreed about Texas higher education reform hailed Cigarroa’s plan as a turning point in the years-long debate.
Read more from American Independent
http://www.americanindependent.com/191366/ut-chancellor-lays-out-broad-plan-for-higher-education-reform
By MELISSA LUDWIG
Rick O’Donnell, a former special adviser to the University of Texas System who received a $70,000 settlement, this week skewered top UT officials for trying to block the release of faculty productivity data, accusing them of orchestrating a scare campaign to pit donors and alumni against regents pushing for changes at the system.
He also took shots at state Sen. Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, who chairs the higher education committee, saying she went to bat for university brass due to overly cozy relations between lawmakers and public universities.
Faculty and administrators “basically want to be left alone,” O’Donnell said. “They push back when regents try to run the university. They ask for lots of (state) funding, and legislators get buildings named after them and tickets to bowl games. (Zaffirini) seems to be extremely defensive of the administration, more so than what is in the best interests of taxpayers.”
Zaffirini denied there is anything unseemly about her support of academia.
“I proudly carry the banner of higher education,” Zaffirini said. O’Donnell and other critics “seem to hate higher education; they seem to hate UT.”
The exchange is a skirmish in a larger philosophical battle over the direction of higher education in Texas. Read More
A $70,000 settlement could have bought peace between the University of Texas System and former special adviser Rick O’Donnell, but O’Donnell, who was fired April 19, instead spoke out against UT System Chancellor Francisco Cigarroa, UT-Austin President William Powers Jr. and state Sen. Judith Zaffirini, the Austin American-Statesman reported.
In an interview with the American-Statesman earlier this week, O’Donnell said Cigarroa and Powers stirred up opposition among donors, alumni and faculty members against efforts by O’Donnell, and some regents to dig up data on faculty productivity. Efforts to gather similar performance data at Texas A&M, rating the “worth” of professors according to revenue brought in and classroom hours taught, earned a rebuke from the prestigious American Association of Universities.
O’Donnell said that Cigarroa, Powers and Zaffirini, a Democrat from Laredo who leads the Higher Education Committee, mounted “a brutal campaign” to demonize the regents who have been active in pursuing faculty data, including Powell, Alex Cranberg, Wallace Hall and Brenda Pejovich. He said Powers begged him and Powell not to collect the data, according to the Statesman.
O’Donnell, a former executive director of the Colorado Department of Higher Education, was dismissed after writing a letter accusing officials at the “highest levels” of the system of suppressing data that showed a great deal of tuition and taxpayer money go to professors do little teaching. Read More
At the height of a controversy about the direction of the school’s governing board earlier this year, the chairman of the University of Texas System regents told a fellow regent that he felt as winded as he did during football practices decades ago under coach Darrell Royal.
“Reminds me of two-a-days in Austin in August — you never seem to catch your breath and when you do it feels like steam!” Gene Powell, chairman of the UT System Board of Regents, said in an email to Regent Robert Stillwell in March.
That email and hundreds more that circulated among regents and others involved in the controversy were obtained from the UT System by the American-Statesman under the Texas Public Information Act.
The messages convey frustration on the part of some regents that they were being criticized as anti-research, as well as an intense interest among regents in gathering data from the system’s campuses on online class offerings, teacher evaluations and other matters. When those data were eventually released publicly, the system said the information was “raw” and “cannot yield accurate analysis, interpretations or conclusions.”
The emails also show that three prominent supporters of higher education wrote a strongly worded letter to Powell urging the regents to make “meaningful statements” regarding the importance of fundamental and applied research, the benefit of the dual mission of teaching and research, and the value of tenured faculty members.
Such statements are essential to address “the perception that actions are being taken that would hurt UT System schools, in particular UT-Austin,” said the letter April 1 from Kenny Jastrow, former CEO of Temple-Inland Inc. and chairman of the university’s ongoing $3 billion capital campaign; Charles Tate, a member of the University of Texas Investment Management Co.’s board; and Pam Willeford, a former chairwoman of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and a former ambassador to Switzerland and Liechtenstein.
The UT System is seeking approval from state Attorney General Greg Abbott for its decision to withhold an unknown number of emails and to black out portions of some that it released to the Statesman.
The Statesman will argue that the information should be made public, said Editor Fred Zipp.
The emails give a flavor of Powell’s reaction to criticism from some lawmakers, alumni and others for his hiring of a $200,000-a-year special adviser who had written that much academic research lacks value. Powell also drew criticism for suggesting in an interview with the Statesman that it might be possible to offer cut-rate degrees that he styled as Bel Air quality, a reference to a mid-level Chevrolet of a generation ago.
“I promise everyone I will be much more careful with my metaphors in the future!!!!” Powell said in a March 9 email to various UT System officials.
The adviser, Rick O’Donnell, was dismissed April 19 after accusing top UT System and UT-Austin officials of suppressing information on faculty members’ productivity. O’Donnell and the system reached a settlement Friday under which he agreed not to sue the system in exchange for $70,000 and a glowing letter about his work from Powell.
In a March 14 email to O’Donnell, Powell said the “loyal opposition” is “telling anyone that will listen that you will be making policy and you have been hired to fire the Chancellor, fire the president of UT Austin and to take over the System.” Read More
By MELISSA LUDWIG
The University of Texas System has settled for $70,000 with a former special adviser who threatened to sue after being fired in April, according to a settlement offer released by UT officials.
Rick O’Donnell’s brief employment at UT kicked up a storm of controversy, with observers questioning his $200,000-a-year salary during a hiring freeze, his job description and his attitude toward academic research.
Neither party admits wrongdoing in the agreement. O’Donnell agrees not to sue in exchange for the $70,000 payout and a letter from Gene Powell, chairman of the UT Board of Regents, praising O’Donnell as “professional and hardworking” and saying the furor that led his firing was not his fault.
“Much of what you were hired to do … was, as you know, mischaracterized by some and the subject of controversy that was not of your making, a controversy that deflected attention from the mission of your important work,” Powell wrote in the letter.
O’Donnell started work March 1 as a special adviser reporting directly to the UT Board of Regents. His job was to staff two task forces Powell created on efficiency and blended learning. Read More
By William Lutz
UT President William Powers Jr. gave an unusual live address to the UT community Monday. His talk was officially billed as an update on the final days of the legislative session, and his message was that UT is all for change and reform — as long as that change and reform doesn’t disturb the status quo or trample on any academic sacred cows (such as teaching loads).
In short, it was an attempt to mask resistance to change using the rhetoric of change and reform. It’s main goal is to stop education reform ideas promoted by Gov. Rick Perry and recent appointees to the UT System Board of Regents dead in their tracks.
Basically, Powers is arguing that the University of Texas is not immune from change and in fact is changing. He then launched into a passionate defense of academic research. Basically, Powers is hoping Republican lawmakers check conservative principles at the door, and instead opt for his brand of Hope and Change. Read More
Rick O'Donnell
March 25, 2011
Dear Regent Hall:
I’ve been thinking about our several discussions regarding the accuracy of claims made about my stance on university research. I appreciate your interest and have been delighted to answer your questions. Please let me elaborate a bit on what we have talked about.
Based on recent news coverage, it is clear that most people have focused on one or two white papers I wrote a number of years ago. That‟s understandable, especially since those papers represent not only a small slice of life but a slice from an environment designed to stimulate dialogue and
encourage debate. However, there is also the evidence from my actual work in higher education where my words and deeds clearly reflect my positive views about the role of research in the university and the role of the research university in higher education in America.
When I served as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Higher Education, I was always a strong proponent of university-based research – both basic research and applied research. In fact, during my career in Colorado state government, I advocated for and assisted in the passage of financing for Colorado to build its new premier biosciences research center, the University of Colorado Health Science Center at Fitzsimmons. At the time, I was recognized by the President of the University of Colorado for the role I played in securing the Governor‟s support for debt financing for this massive project of hospitals, research labs, classrooms and adjacent private sector research park. My opportunity to help move this state-of-the-art health science center from the drawing board to reality was then and continues today as a source of enormous pride and a satisfying example of the many delights of public service.
Throughout my career in senior positions in Colorado state government I was always a strong supporter of investments in science and technology institutions and programs. I was honored to serve as chairman of the Colorado Institute of Technology, a public-private partnership to advance
undergraduate and graduate STEM education. My fellow board members, composed of the presidents of every public and private research university in Colorado and high technology CEOs, unanimously elected me to serve as chairman due to my commitment to the mission and ability to advance it with both public and private sector leaders.
The white papers at the center of recent attention have been used to suggest I don’t value university-based research. In fact, I wrote the white papers to initiate a discussion about approaches to assessing the value of research. That is the role of a white paper at any think tank, including the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF). As a Senior Fellow at TPPF (an unremunerated honorific post), it was my responsibility to produce thought-provoking analytical pieces to advance a line of reasoning to further debate and discussion on important issues. I decided to focus on ways of measuring the productivity of dollars invested in research because I knew from experience that many state legislators and governors raise questions about investments in research and how those investments affect a university‟s teaching, training and public service functions. It was also my responsibility in those papers to offer public policy options that are an outgrowth of the line of reasoning put forward.
I knew my white papers would be controversial. The purpose, after all, was to generate debate. I knew the application of cost-benefit measures would both spotlight the value as well as the limitations of that methodology as well as point to areas where we need better measures of benefits.
I think my papers did that. Too often in cost-benefit analysis we measure what we can (i.e., where data are available) rather than measure what is important – like the old story of the guy looking for the keys to his car under the street light because that‟s where the light is. So, for example, I looked at
the return on scientific research as measured by available data – such as income royalties and licenses on patents. Are these adequate measures of the contribution of research to university-based innovation? No, I don’t think so. But this is what budget analysts will measure in the absence of other indicators.
I think my papers show clearly that we may be spending too much time under the street light – and that, indeed, measures of what is important are sadly missing. For instance, there is evidence that involving freshmen in research with primary investigators increases student engagement and retention. These are valuable outcomes and thus it is worth creating metrics to evaluate how many freshmen contact hours there are with primary investigators, if the trends are going up or down, if student engagement and retention differs by discipline or type of research with which they are involved, and what the costs are for these efforts. Measures such as these will provide guidance on how to craft strategies with the greatest cost-benefit for students and research.
There are many ways to measure and value research beyond that done in my white papers. Research capacity may attract technology-based companies and promote economic growth – one of the very reasons I supported the creation of the Fitzsimmons Health Science Center referenced above. Another value of research is that, particularly via graduate education, it helps prepare the next generation of researchers who, in the private sector, will conduct the vast majority of research done in America. But most of these lack ready metrics.
I hope my white papers and the discussions they have generated (including those over the past few weeks) will help produce new indicators and new measures that will make it possible for taxpayers, legislators, governors, university chancellors, deans, department chairs and institute directors to
develop a more valid dashboard of performance measures and thereby arm leaders at every level with the information they need to be better allocators and managers of scarce resources.
But, when all is said and done, it is clear that the public through their elected officials will, whether we like it or not, increasingly demand that we justify the way we allocate taxpayer funds that support higher education. They have a right and responsibility to do so and those of us in the university have an obligation to provide clear answers to questions that are being asked – especially if budget cuts require a reassessment of priorities and a reallocation of resources. My papers at TPPF, which are now so controversial, are one of many ongoing efforts to show the need for more refined ways to assess the value of the state’s investment in higher education. I am not the first to do this. In fact, I quote many leading academicians who have raised and are raising similar questions. Nor will I be the last. I think that many in leadership positions at every level in the U.T. System and its campuses are to be commended for seeing the need to get a better handle on how we allocate higher education dollars, not the least because there are inevitably going to be fewer dollars to allocate.
Put another way, it’s clear that research investments to facilitate student engagement and retention, advance knowledge, promote economic development or job training will not be free from accountability, including closer examination of their costs and benefits. For instance, Charles O. Holliday Jr., an elected member of the National Academy of Engineering, former CEO of DuPont, and now chair of the National Research Council‟s Committee on Research Universities, a panel of 22 university and corporate leaders formed at the request of members of Congress to examine the financial, organizational and intellectual health of the U.S. research university, said, according to news reports, that “he wanted ways of measuring „the productivity of research universities.‟ It wasn’t clear he’d be getting answers.” At the same meeting, M. Peter McPherson, president of the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities “at one point mused about the value of developing hard figures on the cost of producing a graduate student. Mr. Berdahl [president of the
American Association of Universities] answered, “I‟m not sure we want to call attention to that.‟”
Whether we want the attention or not, it seems clear that questions on productivity, efficiency and accountability for our research universities and research expenditures are being asked. These questions may be controversial to some and seem to challenge the status quo, but they are raised from time to time, even within the scientific community. Not only have I been an agent of higher education reform as a state leader, I am very well acquainted with the literature. As long ago as the early 1970s, the National Science Foundation and others wrestled with if there should be an explicit focus on funding “research for national needs” and just how to evaluate that. Simply typing “research funding accountability” into Google yields millions of links to studies, books and conferences where others have raised similar issues for decades.
In a nutshell, I understand and support the value of research, including basic research, and the central role of research universities in the science and technology eco-system that is the backbone of America’s economic role in the world. I also am unafraid to look at the data, ask hard questions around productivity, cost-benefits and accountability because I think it is possible to measure the value of research to our common weal. Perhaps the best sense of my overall approach to research is what I said on my feet earlier this year as moderator of a panel discussion, where I mentioned that
research is an integral part of the university and economic resources of the state. You may watch the short clip of my remarks here: http://vimeo.com/21526494.
Let me conclude by quoting a recent remark of U.T. Austin President William Powers Jr. “We are committed to inventing and reinventing what it means to be a great public university. We want to make sure that we do it in a way that also advances great public research.” I am in total alignment with President Powers’ comments. I believe that process of reinvention requires us to ask hard questions that may challenge the status quo as we are held accountable for outcomes. That, after all, is how any great organization, including public universities, continually improve.
I hope this letter provides some context and helps clarify my views on the value of research and the research university. Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Like you, I look forward to strengthening the teaching, research and public service commitments of the University of Texas System and its intuitions.
Sincerely,
Rick O‟Donnell
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Published: 8:56 p.m. Friday, March 18, 2011
As the University of Texas System grapples with tighter budgets and expected losses in state aid, UT regents agreed Friday to raise tuition at its medical, dental and nursing health campuses this fall.
The increases at UT’s four medical schools would range from $1,000 to $2,000 a year, with students at the Health Science Center at Houston seeing the highest increase, 16 percent .
That school’s tuition is the lowest among UT’s medical schools at $12,509 a year. Raising it to $14,509 would gradually close the gap with the other medical schools where tuition now ranges from $14,875 at the Medical Branch at Galveston to $15,793 at the Health Science Center at San Antonio.
System officials said the increases are needed in part to help the system’s campuses remain competitive. Several presidents of the health campuses said in letters to the regents that raising tuition also would help mitigate anticipated losses in state money.
In March 2010, before a state shortfall of $23 billion over the next two years came into focus, UT officials asked the health campus presidents to recommend tuition and fees for the 2011-12 academic year. The presidents recommended the increases after meeting with faculty and students.
The UT System board approved their proposals with just one “no” vote: Regent Wallace Hall Jr. of Dallas, who said he was worried about the impact on students.
“I’m concerned about our access to underrepresented groups,” such as low-income students and minorities, Hall said. “To the extent that we can keep a lid on it, that would be my goal.”
UT Executive Vice Chancellor Kenneth Shine said tuition was relatively low at UT medical schools in comparison with their peers nationally. For instance, at Ohio State University, it’s $30,948 a year, and at the University of California, Los Angeles, it’s $28,162 a year, documents UT provided show.
“This (increase) still leaves us well below the national averages for medical schools,” Shine told the regents.
Tuition at the UT System schools will range from 47 to 62 percent of the average cost at U.S. public medical schools, UT System Chancellor Francisco Cigarroa said in a written statement.
Student Regent Kyle Kalkwarf, a fourth-year medical student at the Health Science Center at San Antonio, said that he spoke with medical students at the various campuses. They supported the increases and understood that they were needed to maintain quality and hold onto faculty, Kalkwarf said. “The students know what a deal we’re getting.”
Regent Alex Cranberg of Austin said he wanted the board to come up with a more systematic way to assess student feedback. He also said he wanted campuses to devise more detailed plans on spending tuition increases, rather than presenting broad outlines, as most campuses did this time.
At UT’s two dental schools, where tuition is higher than at the medical schools, regents approved increases of about $1,500, raising tuition to $19,571 a year at the Houston school and to $22,575 at the San Antonio school.
In the nursing and health professions programs attached to health science centers, tuition increases ranged from 3.6 percent at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, where the undergraduate health professions program would cost $4,623 a year starting in the fall, to 33.4 percent at Houston, where the master’s-level nursing program will cost $2,729 a semester.
In addition to approving the tuition increases, the board approved two appointments to its investment arm, the University of Texas Investment Management Co. It reappointed Charles W. Tate to another three-year term, which ends April 1,
2014, and named James P. Wilson, vice chairman of the Texas A&M University System Board of Regents, to a three-year term.
The regents postponed scheduled presentations from special committees on online learning and productivity and excellence.
maroser@statesman.com; 445-3619
University of Texas System annual tuition and fees
UT System regents voted Friday on tuition and fee increases at its medical campuses that are effective in the fall for new students. Existing students at some campuses would see lesser increases.
2010-11 2011-12 % change
Southwestern $15,640 $16,640 6.4%
Medical Branch $14,875 $15,875 6.7%
Health Science-Houston $12,509 $14,509 16%
Health Science-San Antonio $15,793 $16,855 6.7%
Dental schools
Health Science-Houston $18,071 $19,571 8.3%
Health Science-San Antonio $21,013 $22,575 7.4%
Health professions programs
Southwestern $4,985 $5,225 4.8%
Medical Branch $5,463 $5,913 8.2%
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center $4,462 $4,623 3.6%
Health Science-San Antonio varies
Nursing schools*
Medical Branch $3,184/$3,646 $3,422/$3,893 7.5% /6.8%
Health Science-Houston $3,082/$2,045 $3,322/$2,729 7.8%/33.4%
Health Science-San Antonio $3,430/$3,316 $3,680/$3,719 7.3%/12.2%
*Per-semester costs; 15-credit hour undergraduate/12-credit hour master’s programs
Source: University of Texas System
Find this article at:
http://www.statesman.com/news/local/tuition-going-up-this-fall-for-ut-medical-1331673.htm
