The Periodic Table

2012-01-31T12:39:00.002-06:00

A Return to Sanity About MoreU Park?

One of the biggest fiascos and unneccessary draining of resources by the Bruininks/Sullivan regime was the UMore Park fantasy.

For some background please see:

Perhaps Now is the Time for Rethinking Plans for MoreU Park?

On the Continuing MoreU Park Fiasco Is the University of Minnesota a Land Grant Institution?

MoreU Park The Public be Damned?

An Ag Researcher at the University of Minnesota Questions Priorities for MoreU Park

More on MoreU...

More on MoreU Sunshine is the best disinfectant...

Exactly how long is the UMore Park craziness going to continue?

Perhaps the new Kaler/Hanson administration will take a closer look at this house of cards?

The President met with faculty members from the College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Sciences to discuss the impact of UMore Park plans on their research.

He has also asked for a reassessment of the path forward with respect to UMore Park, given the real estate market and that the market for the gravel is also down.

There are a variety of constituents that will need to be involved in the conversation.

January 19, 2012

Faculty Consultative Committee

$$$

2012-01-30T10:11:00.001-06:00

University of Minnesota Academic Health Center

to Undergo External Review

Dear AHC colleagues,

This fall the Academic Health Center Review Executive Steering Committee, chaired by Vice President and Dean Friedman and Vice President Mulcahy, completed a review of the AHC mission, structure and centers. This review was an instructive self-study and was consistent with the charge issued by President Bruininks.

As I noted upon receiving the report, it made several meaningful recommendations but was not designed to answer larger questions about the vision and the future of the AHC. I believe those are important questions and for that reason, I am charging a small committee to complete an external review. This external committee will be chaired by Dr. Ken Kaushansky, a member of the Institute on Medicine, dean of the School of Medicine, and senior vice president for the Health Sciences at Stony Brook University.

The primary question for the external review committee to consider is whether the AHC is structured to ensure excellence in all of our health science schools. One of my strategic goals for the University is to strengthen the health sciences and improve the national reputation of the Medical School. It is critical to both the future of the University and the state of Minnesota that we improve our leadership position in the health sciences in order to meet workforce needs, discover new cures and treatments, continue to provide high-quality clinical care, and support the biomedical industry. This requires an objective look at where we are and where we need to be to improve our position.

The recent self-study, along with many internal and external reviews and strategic plans that outline the strengths and challenges of our health science enterprise, will provide a valuable starting point for the external reviewers. In addition, the committee will visit campus to interview leaders and have the discussions necessary to fully understand and assess our needs.

As you may know, the Medical School accreditation team will be here in March. The external review team will visit as soon thereafter as is practical.

The mission of the AHC—to train the next generation of health professionals, to discover new cures and treatments and to enhance the economic vitality of our health industries—has never been more important. We need to ensure that we are positioned to meet that mission to the fullest.

Thank you for all you do to make the AHC and the University successful. I look forward to working with you to continue to build on the strengths of the Academic Health Center.

Sincerely,

Eric W. Kaler
President

2012-01-22T12:13:00.006-06:00

Going to Market Part II

On December 8, 2011 the provost and the business school dean presented to the six Regents who serve on the Educational Planning & Policy Committee the proposal of the administration to impose a tuition surcharge on the undergraduate students in the business school. By the end of a three year phase-in period the business students would be paying a "differential tuition" that would be $2,000 more per year than the other undergraduate students on the Twin Cities campus. The tuition surcharge would generate $4.9 million for the business school. See p. 16 of the December 8, 2011 report of the Committee.

The senior administrators told the Regents that the increases in tuition over the past five years have not offset the decline in state funding and increases in operating costs. They informed the Regents that allocations of state appropriations have fallen from approximately $14 million in fiscal year 2007 to $4 million in fiscal year 2012 and are now less than 4% of the business school budget.

1. Allocation of state appropriations.

The state legislature does not determine the amount of state appropriations that the business school receives each year. The legislature provides a lump sum grant of hundreds of millions of dollars in state appropriations for the general fund of the University (the Operations & Maintenance fund). The senior administrators and the Regents are the persons responsible for determining the amount of state appropriations to allocate to the business school (and to all the other units of the University).

In fiscal year 2007 the University received $556 million in state appropriations for its general fund. The administration allocated $13 million (2.3%) to the business school. See p. 69 and p. 71 of the June 27, 2007 report of the Board of Regents.

For fiscal year 2012 the University received $484 million in state appropriations for its general fund. The administration allocated $3.3 million (0.7%) to the business school. (By comparison, in fiscal year 2012 the administration allocated $6.9 million in state appropriations to the athletic department.) See p. 103 of the September 9, 2011 report of the Board of Regents and pp. 80-81 of the June 10, 2011 report of the Board of Regents.

The administration made the decision to reduce the allocation of state appropriations to the business school. Now it seeks to impose a greater financial burden on undergraduate business students (and their parents) in the form of "differential tuition."

2. Tuition

Is it accurate for the administration to assert that the increases in tuition over the past five years have not been sufficient to offset its $10 million reduction in the allocation of state appropriations to the business school and the increases in operating costs? Let us examine the actual numbers (that the senior administrators failed to provide to the Regents).

In fiscal year 2007 the business school collected $54.9 million in tuition, fees, and executive education tuition. See p. 29 of the 2007 annual report of the business school.

In fiscal year 2011 the business school collected $68.7 million in tuition and fees and an additional $3.3 million in executive education tuition (now reported separately). See the Financial Report section of the 2011 annual report.

Then there are the additional sources of revenue--endowment earnings and gifts--that the senior administrators also failed to disclose to the Regents. (The business school has its own endowment fund that increased in value from $117 million at the end of fiscal year 2008 to $137.5 million at the end of fiscal year 2010. See the final line of Facts & Figures of the business school.) In fiscal year 2007 the business school received $8.3 million in endowments earnings and gifts. See p. 29 of the 2007 annual report. In fiscal year 2011 the business school received $10.5 million in endowment earnings and gifts. See the Financial Report section of the 2011 annual report.

On the issue of accuracy consider that the senior administrators told the Regents that the number of faculty had remained "static" over the past eight years from 104 in fiscal year 2004 to 104 in fiscal year 2011. (The administration advances the need to hire additional faculty as the primary justification for a tuition surcharge.) Yet the number of faculty increased from 104 in fiscal year 2010 to 111 in fiscal year 2011 without any tuition surcharge (as reported by the business school itself). See the Statistics section of the 2011 annual report .

The senior administrators present to the Regents the facts that support the proposals of the administration. The Regents are part-time volunteers. They do not conduct their own research on the facts and then make independent assessments. So the outcome is preordained. Virtually every major proposal of the administration is approved by the Regents, usually by unanimous vote.

3. A Financial Barrier

Shortly after taking office President Kaler made a pledge:
I will push back on anything that begins to put a financial barrier in front of qualified students.
See p. 8 of the Fall 2011 issue of Reach, the magazine of the College of Liberal Arts, (emphasis added).

A reporter asked the president about his pledge in light of his support for the tuition surcharge on undergraduate business students. He responded:
The combination of financial aid and the marketplace is consistent with the idea of not putting a barrier in front of qualified students.
See the January 16, 2012 report of the Star Tribune on Chasing U Funding.

An unspecified amount of the tuition surcharge would be used to provide scholarships to students in need according to the written materials that the senior administrators presented to the Regents on December 8, 2011. Yet when a Regent asked the business school dean about this unspecified amount the dean responded that none of the $4.9 million surcharge would be used for scholarships. The business school would instead rely on "private funds and other means" for scholarships. See the December 9, 2011 report in the Star Tribune on U Regents hear pitch for Carlson tuition hike.

The undergraduate students in the business school should not hold their breaths waiting for a significant increase in scholarships. The dollar amount of scholarships awarded by the business school has barely budged from $3 million in fiscal year 2007 to $3.3 million in fiscal year 2011 despite an increase in enrollment of more than 300 undergraduate students. See p. 27 of the 2007 annual report and the Statistics section of the 2011 annual report.

The "marketplace" factor mentioned by the president is a reference to the fact that the average starting salary for a graduate with a B.S is over $48,000 according to the business school. See the Facts & Figures of the business school .

If the business school provides a quality education, then the administration should have confidence that the students will support the school after graduation (and will be able to do so because the students will not have large student loans). The administration should not have to resort to strong-arming the students (and their parents) with a tuition surcharge while the students are still in school.

There is a final point to make here regarding a tuition surcharge. The senior administrators place an emphasis on the "significant private benefits" that the business students receive. See p. 18 of the December 8, 2011 report of the Educational Planning & Policy Committee. This emphasis serves to reinforce the perspective of some state legislators of a college education as merely vocational training. Those legislators then have no hesitation in voting to slash state appropriations to the University in order to shift more and more of the cost of education to the students who receive "significant private benefits."

4. A "Minor" Amendment

The current policy of the Board of Regents requires that on each campus of the University the same resident undergraduate tuition rate must be charged to all resident undergraduate students. The administration is proposing what it describes as a "minor" amendment to the policy by adding this sentence:
A college specific tuition surcharge may be established as a supplement to the relevant undergraduate tuition rate.
See the final paragraph on p. 19 of the December 8, 2011 report of the Educational Planning & Policy Committee.

The scope of this "minor" amendment is without limit. It could be used to impose a tuition surcharge on the undergraduate students in any of the colleges at the University.

Perhaps the "marketplace" factor would be used next to justify a tuition surcharge on the undergraduate students in the College of Science & Engineering or in the College of Biological Sciences. (Some universities have already imposed "differential tuition" on undergraduate students in engineering.) The graduates of these colleges probably have an average starting salary that is greater than that of the graduates of the College of Liberal Arts.

The administration asserts that it does not have any plans at the present to impose a tuition surcharge on any other undergraduate students. But, as American philosopher George Santayana reminded us, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

During the past 10 years the administration has increased spending on operations by 50% to $3 billion per year. The senior administrators have financed their billion dollar increase primarily through skyrocketing tuition that has more than offset the reduction in state appropriations. See section 1 of $tate of the University--A Parent's Perspective.

The administration has declared that "tuition is the revenue stream with the highest potential for significant, long term growth." See New Fiscal Reality No. 2 on p. 8 of the 2009 Report of the Future Financial Resources Task Force; see also, Recommendation No. 2 (Grow Tuition Revenue) at pp. 7, 51-52 of the 2011 report on Financing the Future. The "minor" amendment that would allow the administration to impose a tuition surcharge on undergraduate students in any college at the University opens the floodgate to this "revenue stream."

The billion dollar increase in spending by the administration over the past 10 years compels it to now do everything it can to increase the "revenue stream" of tuition in order to maintain a $3 billion (and growing) annual budget. As Professor Chris Cramer, chair of the Faculty Consultative Committee, recently observed:
The broader problem is that the vision should be that this is a university where the best courses are taught, but it is moving to teaching courses that instead make the most money.
See p. 6 of the January 18, 2012 report of the FCC (emphasis added.)

Conclusion

In fiscal year 2012 the University received $484 million in state appropriations for its general fund. The administration allocated $3.3 million (0.7%) to the business school. The amount that the business school collects for tuition, fees, and executive education tuition increased from $54.9 million in fiscal year 2007 to $72 million in fiscal year 2011. The amount that the business school receives from endowment earnings and gifts increased from $8.3 million in fiscal year 2007 to $10.5 million in fiscal year 2011. If the business school truly needs additional funds to hire faculty, the administration should increase the minuscule percentage of state appropriations that it now allocates to the school--not impose an even greater financial burden on the undergraduate students and their parents.

Related Posts

Going To Market

Deck The Halls

Off Course in Higher Education

Course Correction in Higher Education

University Inc. Part II

Michael W. McNabb

University of Minnesota B.A. 1971; J.D. 1974

University of Minnesota Alumni Association life member

2011-12-30T14:43:00.005-06:00

Course Correction in Higher Education

"To save the U, Bob Bruininks had to destroy it," declared Minnesota Monthly in its July 2011 report. The administration prefers to refer to this destruction as Transforming the U.

Here are some suggestions for a course correction.

1. Scrap the "high tuition high financial aid" experiment and roll back tuition.

This experiment is described in the July 2011 report in Minnesota Monthly aptly entitled The Man Who Slew the U. In practice this model has been a financial disaster for students and their parents.

This method of financing undergraduate education works for students only if financial aid in the form of scholarships and grants keeps pace with the increases in tuition. For most students this never happened. Instead, students were forced to borrow more and more to pay the skyrocketing tuition. See the October 14, 2011 report in the Star Tribune on Generation Debt.

The administration used part of the skyrocketing tuition for scholarships for students from lower income families. This method of providing access to the University by shifting the financial burden to other students raised questions of fairness. See the June 29, 2011 report in the Star Tribune on Tensions Rising Over Cost Disparities at U.

On December 8, 2011 chief financial officer Richard Pfutzenreuter informed the Finance & Operations Committee of the Board of Regents that his office has now developed a method to calculate the cost of instruction and to allocate the sources of revenue available to pay that cost. The report of the Committee notes that "this type of analysis has not been presented to the Board of Regents in the past." See p. 4 of the report of the Committee. So over the past 10 years the senior administrators and the Regents made a series of decisions that doubled undergraduate tuition without having such a basic analysis.

How does one determine whether increases in tuition are necessary and reasonable without knowing either the cost of instruction or the allocation of other revenues (such as state appropriations) to pay that cost? The senior administrators and Regents who have done so are so far removed from the economic lives of most students and parents that they are oblivious to the hardship caused by skyrocketing tuition.

This ill-conceived experiment for financing undergraduate education should be abandoned before it creates an entire generation of indentured students. Rolling back tuition is the most effective and efficient way to provide financial aid. We need to once again make higher education affordable for all students.

2. Reward quality teaching as much as quality research.

The current system rewards professsors for their research. So enormous amounts of time and effort are dedicated to research that does little to advance knowledge. See the December 4, 2011 commentary in The Chronicle of Higher Education on The Research Bust. Those professors who do produce valuable research are rewarded with fewer classes and with graduate students to teach the classes.

Professors who care about teaching should teach undergraduate students. They should devote their time to improving their classroom instruction and to meeting with students. Their pay and promotion should be based primarily on the quality of their teaching.

Those who care about research should be research fellows in a separate Institute of Research at the University. Their pay and promotiion should be based primarily on the quality of their research.

The few who have both the skill and the time to excel at teaching and research should be paid a bonus. They will have earned it.

3. Roll back the costs of administration and restore the ideal of public service.

During the past 10 years the administration has increased spending on operations at the University by 50% to $3 billion per year. This is due, in part, to the explosion in the costs of administration since 2005. See section 3 in University Inc. Part II. This explosion includes the extravagant compensation of senior administrators that now far excceds the compensation of their fellow public servants in state government who have similar qualifications and duties. See On The Cost of Administration.

Skyrocketing tuition also provided a gusher of money to hire numerous additional administrators to report to the senior administrators. We now have an administrative structure that is incomprehensible even to the insiders. See Rube Goldberg Administration. The "cost pools" used to support this structure have become financial black holes that drain tens of millions of dollars from the colleges at the University. See Stop Using Students as ATMs.

There should be substantial reductions in the compensation of senior administrators and in the sheer number of administrators. Those senior administrators who believe that they should continue to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensation and benefits each year would be free to seek such compensation in the private sector or at other universities whose leaders fail to ask Questions of Value. There are many qualified persons in our state who are still dedicated to public service.

4. Give real authority to the faculty senate and eliminate most of the faculty committees.

At present the administration is able to simply ignore the faculty, as it did when it combined the positions of medical school dean and vice president of the academic health center and when it reorganized the graduate school. See Faculty Governance is an Oxymoron and An Offer She Can't Refuse.

Every major proposal of the administration should be subject to the approval of the faculty senate. The administration should be able to submit major proposals to the Regents only if it is able to successfully make its case to the faculty.

At the same time most of the faculty committees should be eliminated. The numerous committees produce much talk and little action. Instead of spending time in committee meetings, the professors should devote the time to the instruction of their students.

5. Repeal the Bayh-Doyle Act (the University & Small Business Patent Procedures Act).

This 1980 federal legislation enables universities to obtain patents for inventions even though though public funds are used for the research. The mere prospect of profits has generated huge increases in the operating expenses and capital costs related to research. (The U of M spends hundreds of millions of dollars on research each year.) Federal grants cover only a part of those expenditures. Only a few universities realize sufficient revenues to make a profit. See On The Hidden Cost of Research.

To make matters worse, the law of unintended consequences took effect. The hopes of senior administrators for a huge financial payoff for their own institution promotes secrecy that blocks the free flow of information among scholars. The quest for the advancement of knowledge has been submerged in the quest for profits. See University Inc. The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education by Jennifer Washburn.

As costs have mounted and federal grants for research have declined, the universities have looked more and more to corporate sponsors. See the December 10, 2011 report in the Pioneer Press on U Open for Business Research. This has produced a blurring of the priorities of non-profit institutions of higher education and the priorities of for profit corporate sponsors. See The Markinson Files and Continuing Disgrace. The increasing reliance on corporate funds can also cause senior administrators to attempt to block the public presentation of research that might offend major corporate donors. See The Troubled Waters of Big Ags Influence.

Research is an essential function of the University. But it must be done in the right way for the right reasons with the right safeguards.

6. Leave busines to business.

As the senior administrators at the U of M looked for ways to increase profits, they decided to transform UMore Park into a unique combination of a commercial gravel pit and a utopian residential community. They told the Regents that this new business model would produce from $3 million to $10 million in revenues each year. This projection turned out to wildly unrealistic. See section 1 in University Inc. Part II.

The gravel pit will be located on land that has been used for agricultural research that has produced hundreds of millions of dollars for the economy of Minnesota. It appears that the senior administrators and the Regents made the decision on UMore Park without consulting either the professors who were engaged in the research or any agricultural economists. See Rethinking MoreU Park.

This is what can happen in the new corporate university when senior administrators and Regents go moonlighting and use public funds to start business ventures on the side. It is easy for senior administrators and Regents to take enormous financial risks on such business ventures as they are not using their own money.

7. Transfer the major revenue sports teams.

In fiscal year 2009 the University ranked No. 20 in the nation on expenditures on athletics at $70.3 million. The color of the financing is red. Each year the athletic department continues to receive multi-million dollar subsidies from the general fund of the University. Meanwhile, the administration plans to continue to eliminate academic programs and to replace professors with part-time instructors. See Expensive Icing.

In the 20th century intercollegiate athletics evolved from club teams to big business, especially in the major revenue sports of football and men's basketball. There was a transition from a game in which a limited number of coaches with modest salaries instructed local students to an annual $70+ million financial enterprise at the University in which numerous coaches with lavish compensation engage in the national recruiting of young men merely for their athletic skills.

The result has been an endless series of embarrassments for the University: the on court riot instigated by some members of the basketball team of Bill Musselman; the cash doled out by Luther Darville to certain football players of Lou Holtz; the group sex in Madison by some basketball players of Jim Dutcher; the academic fraud during the tenure of Clem Haskins; the 2007 conviction of a Gopher football player for criminal sexual conduct for ejaculating on the face of a young woman intoxicated to the point of being unconscious; the star basketball recruit who arrived on campus in 2009 with a felony assault charge for allegedly breaking facial bones of a young woman by punching her when she had the nerve to resist his attempt to pull down her pants; the dismal graduation rates for the football and men's basketball teams.

There is a solution that would permit the University to disentangle itself from the big business of major revenue sports while allowing those programs to continue. The football and men's basketball teams should be organized as separate corporations. The University would grant a license to those corporations to use the University name for the teams.

The fee for the license would be a percentage of the revenues the corporations generate from ticket sales, broadcasting rights, advertising, etc. The University would use part of the license fee income to support the non-revenue sports it decides to retain, such as track and swimming. This is a solution that would enable the sports fans to continue to enjoy the games and enable the University to focus on its academic mission--the reason for its existence.

Michael W. McNabb

University of Minnesota B.A. 1971; J.D. 1974

University of Minnesota Alumni Association life member

2011-12-08T09:50:00.001-06:00

Deck The Halls

[My friend and fellow alum, Michael McNabb, writes:]

Students from the U of M School of Music performed Deck The Halls in the atrium at the business school on November 23. One can see the spirit generated by the performance in the faces of the business students who were present. Now a tone deaf administration announces a plan that will crush that spirit by charging business students with "differential tuition." Within three years the undergraduate business students will pay $2,000 more per year in tuition than other U of M undergraduate students. See the December 1, 2011 report in the Star Tribune.

The administration asserts that it must increase tuition in order to hire more faculty due to increased enrollment. Yet that increase in enrollment has produced a corresponding increase in the total amount of tuition paid by business students.

The Provost claims that state budget cuts prevented the administration from implementing a plan to hire more faculty. The fact is that the senior administrators and the Regents are the persons responsible for determining the allocation of state appropriations to the business school. In fiscal year 2012 the University will receive $484 million in state appropriations for its general fund. Senior administrators (with the approval of the Regents) made the decision to allocate less than 1% of the state appropriations ($3.3 million) to the business school. See Off Course in Higher Education.

"Differential tuition" can be justified only if the cost of instruction at the business school exceeds the amount of tuition paid by the students, state appropriations, and the corporate and individual contributions dedicated to that cost. The real problem here is that the administration has not calculated the cost of instruction. In the absence of an accurate calculation of that cost there is no rhyme or reason to imposing a greater financial burden on the students (and their parents). See also Going To Market.

Postscript

"I will push back on anything that begins to put a financial barrier in front of qualified students."

President Eric Kaler at p. 8 of the Fall 2011 issue of Reach, the magazine of the College of Liberal Arts (emphasis added).

Kaler is recommending that the board change a regents policy to allow the tuition surcharge ["differential tuition"]. If it passes, it would make it easier for other U colleges to get similar approvals.

December 1, 2011 report in the Star Tribune.

---

2011-12-02T14:50:00.000-06:00

Thoreau: We have become the tools of our tools...

The Minnesota Daily Pulls Another Tooth -

Technology Worship at the Dental School?

From the Daily:

DentSims: to teach or to tout?

When the School of Dentistry brought 20 DentSims to the University, it characterized them as something that would revolutionize learning. But the lab is vacant 85 percent of the time, and some say the product doesn't match the publicity.

In 2008, leaders of the University of Minnesota’s School of Dentistry got what they were looking for — a clinic to put the institution at the forefront of dental education.

Part of the clinic featured DentSims, a virtual simulation tool that the University said could revolutionize the way dental students learn. The school was the first in the Big Ten to get them.

Each DentSim features a mannequin with an adjustable head, a lifelike mouth and a set of plastic teeth. An infrared camera tracks students’ work and displays it on a screen. A computer offers instant feedback on how students perform and provides a 3D representation of the tooth they’re operating on.

The University spent $1.5 million for 20 DentSims during a roughly $10 million renovation of Moos Tower’s fourth-floor clinic area. The DentSims cost $75,000 each and sit in the School of Dentistry’s Advanced Simulation Clinic, part of a larger simulation area.

Nearly four years later, the dummies sit unused about 85 percent of the school year, according to a Minnesota Daily records analysis. The lab is in use for an average of 8.4 hours a week.

But only half of that use is for classes, and they’re mostly introductory ones. Tours, cleaning and maintenance take up the other half of the lab’s schedule.

Judith Buchanan, interim dean of the University’s School of Dentistry, has been researching virtual reality teaching tools since the late 1990s.

Buchanan found students learn almost twice as fast with the technology, she told the Daily in 2006.

Former School of Dentistry Dean Patrick Lloyd celebrated the University’s new DentSim units when the lab opened in 2008.

“The equipment has made us re-evaluate the way we educate dental students,” Lloyd said in a statement from that year. “It’s dental education designed for students raised in the digital era.”

But nearly four years later, the machines sit largely unused. Faculty members and students say the lab is often empty when they walk by it.

Schedules from fall 2010 through fall 2011 show the clinic is unused about 85 percent of the time. The clinic is booked for an average of 8.4 hours a week.

“They sit there vacant most of the time,” said one clinical faculty member who asked to remain confidential for fear of risking his job.

The previously mentioned clinical faculty member called the machines an “administrative toy.”

“When they wanted to impress the president with the School of Dentistry, what did they show him?” he said. “They held his hand, they brought him into the computer simulation area and they turned on all the lights and bells and whistles. They let him play with it because you can do that.”

He said DentSims fool people who aren’t familiar with dentistry and the machine’s actual capabilities.

Many directly involved in using the clinic for courses, research or demonstrations declined to comment publicly about the lab or didn’t return multiple requests for comment.

Lloyd also declined to comment.

An upper-level dentistry student who asked for confidentiality because of a student leadership position came to the University because of the DentSims and other technological upgrades in the school that were touted at the time.

The student said it’s well-known within the school that the lab is rarely used and that there are problems with the technology.

“Everybody that’s there knows it,” the student said. “The students all know it, the faculty all know it and the administration thinks it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread.”

Dentistry second-years Nicole Haus, Salma Helal and Amy Ott said the clinic was plugged during their interviews at the School of Dentistry, but its use never really materialized.

“When we did our interview, that was huge,” Ott said. “They were like, ‘Oh, look at this, no other school has this.’”

The three agreed that their introductory class in the clinic wasn’t very useful and glossing over the material was easy. If she messed up drilling a tooth, Ott said she would just redo it.

“I wouldn’t do it the right way,” she said. “You can totally cheat the system for the class.”

In Pennsylvania, Maggio said she has used “superglue and gum” to hold parts of her older models together. But, like Buchanan and others, she stands behind the technology because of its educational potential.

The upper-level student disagreed.

“You have administrators who think that’s the new way of dentistry, and it doesn’t work.”

2011-11-30T14:31:00.001-06:00

Student debt is sky-high

Minnesota has the fourth highest post-grad

average student debt in the U.S.

Can't say it enough times....

Maybe the Kaler administration will rise to the challenge?

From the Daily:

A report recently released by the Project on Student Debt reflects the abysmal realities of Minnesota college graduates and the recent trend of Minnesota’s waning support for public higher education.

From the fourth highest average student debt upon graduation — an average of $29,058 — to the fifth highest percentage of students graduating with debt at 71 percent, Minnesota’s drift away from affordable higher education cannot be simply dismissed from public discourse. The access to post-secondary education should remain important.

With Sen. Larry Pogemiller, DFL-Minneapolis, becoming director of the Office of Higher Education, the public conversation needs to center on the fastest-growing type of personal debt in the country. Young Americans have the potential to pull us out of economic stagnation if we give them the chance.

Our society does not merely encourage but basically compels many young individuals to get a college degree, which invariably means taking on debt. We think that it is a bad idea for 18-year-olds to have credit cards, yet we pile on $30,000 of debt and dim job prospects onto hordes of 22-year-olds.

The average Minnesotan college-hopeful ought to understand that society is presenting a double-edged sword. Odds are students will spend years or decades paying down debt that they are told they must take on if they want a high-paying, fulfilling job.

No practical solutions have been proposed to this dilemma, and the general public doesn’t seem to care about students’ undeniable plights. Suffocating amounts of debt should not be the price for doing what society tells us we need to do to be successful.

My comment on the Daily site:

Some of us have been complaining about this situation at the U for many years. For example see the latest post on The Periodic Table - Administrators vs. Students - link: http://bit.ly/u2UMSe - and links therein.

We know the solution to the problem. It is called transparency about educational costs and unreimbursed costs of research. It also has to do with grandiose schemes to achieve world class greatness by the previous administration.

See: University of Inefficiency: http://bit.ly/qOvAfG

and my article in the Chronicle of Higher Education: World-Class Greatness at a Land-Grant University Near You: http://bit.ly/bN3sbD

The time for talk is over. President Kaler, let's start to take some steps to address our tuition nightmare.

$$$

2011-11-29T10:14:00.002-06:00

University of Minnesota to Limit Transfers,

as Enrollment at Other State Colleges Swells

A funny thing happened on the way to more cooperation between the University of Minnesota and MNSCU...

From the Pioneer Press:

A bid to shrink the ranks of transfer students to the University of Minnesota has opened a rift among the state's public higher-education institutions.

The Minnesota State Colleges and Universities System has sounded alarms over the U's plan to trim transfer student enrollment roughly 8 percent over the next couple of years. MnSCU supplies 45 percent of U transfers.

The U's plan is "troubling and disappointing," said Larry Litecky, interim vice chancellor for academic and student affairs at MnSCU. It goes against the state's commitment to improve access to four-year degrees for all residents, added Litecky, who noted that amid talk of closer cooperation between the U and MnSCU, he heard of the plan through the media.

But U officials say the flak is unfair.

[They would.]

The U's plan doesn't mesh with the state's push to increase minority, low-income and first-generation student enrollment, said MnSCU's Litecky. The planned transfer limits come at a time when the system is graduating more students - and more of those under-represented students - than ever.

"In a lot of ways, this decision couldn't be timed any worse," Litecky said. "It's a time of record-high demand."

______

It should be noted that the U of M is in the process of increasing the number of students admitted to the U, ramping up to a thousand more in the next few years. An economic analysis would make clear why transfer students are more costly per head than first-years.

But is a decision based on this fact desirable? Is it in the best interests of the state to cut down on transfers to the U?

Seems to me that the U admin is engaged in a bit of the bait and switch game here. They may pay for it at the legislature.

And, if President Kaler and Chancellor Rosenstone are such close personal friends, why is it that, as Litecky notes, MNSCU officials first learned of this in the newspaper?

As the higher ed pie stays static or even shrinks, a battle for resources seems inevitable. A 50/50 split may not be in the cards unless real cooperation occurs, not just talk. This lack of agreement between MNSCU and the U on an important issue is not a good way to start the much ballyhooed new age of cooperation.

2011-11-25T10:05:00.003-06:00

Administrators v. Students

My friend and fellow alum, Michael McNabb writes another of his timely and important analyses of financial matters at the University of Minnesota. In the absence of full and transparent disclosure at the U, these essays have been widely read by those interested in returning to the U's original land grant priorities and in making it an institution of which all Minnesotans can be proud.

During the past 10 years the administration has increased spending on the costs of operations at the University by 50% to $3 billion per year. This is due, in part, to the explosion in the costs of administration since 2005. See section 3 of University Inc. Part II and Rube Goldberg Administration. This explosion includes the extravagant compensation of senior administrators that now far exceeds the compensation of their fellow public servants in state government who have similar qualifications and duties. See On The Cost of Administration.

The senior administrators have financed their billion dollar increase primarily through skyrocketing tuition that has more than offset the reduction in state appropriations. See section 1 of $tate of the University--A Parent's Perspective. This skyrocketing tuition is creating a generation of indentured students who are also confronted with a dismal job market. See the October 14, 2011 report in the Star Tribune on Generation Debt.

So the senior administrators have now created a financial conflict of interest with students (and their parents). Scores of senior administrators now collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensation and benefits each year. The administration defends this lavish compensation as within market range for the positions. This economic justification--straight from the Wall Street executives who gave us the Great Recession--fails to provide an ethical justification for the pursuit of personal wealth by the leaders of a non-profit institution dedicated to public service. See the dedication engraved above the entrance to Northrop Auditorium. See also section 3 and the Postscript to $tate of the University--A Parent's Perspective.

The Code of [Ethical] Conduct for the University proscribes conflicts of interest. See Section III, subd. 8 of the Code. Recall that the Regents demanded that Steve Sviggum resign from his position in the School of Public Affairs so that he would avoid any conflict of interest with his duties as a Regent. See First the Sentence Then the Verdict.

The financial conflict of interest of senior administrators is not removed by requiring the Regents to approve the budget. The Regents are part-time volunteers. They rely on the senior administrators to sift through the volumes of information about the operations of the University, so they see only the information selected by the administrators.

Nor do the Regents have much time to listen to other members of the University community with different perspectives. The Regents develop a bond with the senior administrators with whom they spend most of their time and thus have a tendency to dismiss other viewpoints. They should ask Questions of Value. Instead, each year the Regents approve the budget proposed by the administration, almost always by unanimous vote.

So what is the remedy for this financial conflict of interest? Perhaps the senior administrators should be barred from participating in the development of the budget on the compensation of administrators whose annual compensation and benefits exceed $200,000.

Or perhaps the state legislature should enact a student and parent version of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. That federal legislation requires the approval of shareholders for executive compensation. See the summary of Title IX, Subtitle E of the Act. The state version would require the approval of a majority of all 67,000+ students for the compensation of the most highly paid administrators at the University.

Or perhaps the state legislature should set certain conditions on the allocation of state appropriations. This solution would recognize both the constitutional autonomy of the University and the constitutional power of the legislature to allocate state funds. Congress often imposes conditions on the allocation of federal funds to the states.

Legislative conditions may be necessary course corrections for a land grant institution whose leaders are transforming it into a quasi-private corporation at the expense of the students, their parents and the citizens of our state. See Off Course in Higher Education and Going to Market.

If nothing is done about the skyrocketing tuition, then the students will vote with their feet by going to colleges that provide better value. Because even with the billion dollar increase in annual spending on operations the administration is planning to continue to eliminate academic programs and to replace professors with part-time instructors (or, cheaper yet for the University, with online instruction). See section 1 of $tate of the University--A Parent's Perspectice. Not even the "Because" advertising campaign on which the administration is wasting millions of dollars will convince the students and their parents that such actions increase the value of education available at the University. See section 2 of University Inc. Part II.

END QUOTES

The real issue is increasing the value that we the University bring to the State of Minnesota, to its stakeholders and to our students. Increasing that value, communicating it and demonstrating it will be the major goal of my presidency.
President Eric Kaler in the July 7, 2011 report of the St. Paul Pioneer Press (emphasis added).

To the best of my recollection, no great scientific discoveries, no insightful social science tracts, and no novels have been produced in Morrill Hall. No classes are taught in Morrill Hall. No patients are made well in Morrill Hall. . . . Without authority invested where the real work of this University is done, the light of excellence will only grow dimmer.
President Mark Yudof in his 1997 Inaugural Address (emphasis added). See Tenth Anniversary of Inauguration.

Michael W. McNabb

University of Minnesota B.A. 1971; J.D 1974
University of Minnesota Alumni Association life member

2011-11-21T12:17:00.002-06:00

UC - Davis

The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave?

The chancellor of the University of California Davis has been involved in some earlier experiences that did not exactly cover her in glory. This pepper spray incident may be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel's back.

My friend Roy poses writes in an email:

(emphasis mine)

A very big story last week was how campus police pepper sprayed unarmed, peaceful student demonstrators at the University of California - Davis. This lead to widespread calls for the resignation of the University Chancellor, Linda Katehi. This aggressive, violent response to peaceful protest seems to be the latest example of the arrogance of some current leaders of our important organizations.

This case appears directly related to the problems in leadership and governance we discuss on Health Care Renewal (http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com) Ms Katehi has the distinction of having been already written up twice on Health Care Renewal for questions about her leadership.

On her arrival at UC-Davis in 2009, she showed ignorance of, if not hostility to the fundamental university mission by suggesting the university should enthusiastically embrace the development and marketing biotech products:
http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2009/08/university-leaders-goal-taking-new.html

At that time, I called this an example of "how the leaders of academic institutions seem to be forgetting or radically deconstructing their academic missions."

In 2011, Ms Katehi showed her support for the self-interest of management by defending the entitlement of the medical center CEO to nearly a million dollars yearly in compensation:
http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/09/more-repeats-of-talking-points.html

Although I could not have predicted that Chancellor Katehi would preside over the pepper spraying unarmed students for peaceful, legitimate protest, it is not surprising that a leader without respect for the academic mission and who supports executive exceptionalism would foster an authoritarian climate in which such an incident could happen.

You heard it here first on Health Care Renewal (http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com).

Keep your eye on Health Care Renewal for continued discussion of parallels between problems in health care and in the larger political economy.

Update:

I just put a longer version with quotes and an embedded video of the pepper spray story, and slightly longer discussion of our previous write up of Ms Katehi up as a post on Health Care Renewal:

http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/11/uc-davis-pepper-spray-case-as.html

Roy Poses, M.D.

$$$

2011-11-14T10:49:00.002-06:00

Can Conceal and Carry Permit Holders

Who Are Not Students or Employees

of the University of Minnesota

Bring Guns on Campus?

It appears so....

If this is true, then some action by the legislature is called for...

Public Postsecondary Educational Institutions

Any public postsecondary educational institution may establish policies restricting the carrying or possession of firearms by its students while on the institution’s property. Public postsecondary educational institutions are not authorized to generally prohibit the lawful carrying or possession of firearms by members of the public who are neither their students nor their employees. Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 18(b).

Unsurprising given the gun nut wackos, like Cornish, being egged on by Mitchell P. Berg who wants to make "gunz" a wedge issue in next election...

< ! >

2011-11-14T06:00:00.002-06:00

Dirty Laundry Gets Spin Cycle

The University of Minnesota Administration's Reaction

to Criticism has Been Too Focused on Public Relations Spin

From the University of Minnesota Daily:

The Minnesota Daily Editorial Board has been extremely disappointed with the response from administrators to criticism of the School of Dentistry’s arrogance, autocratic management and questionable ethics.

The guest column “Dentistry dean took school forward” that ran Tuesday, Nov. 1, was signed by several members of the dentistry school. The authors signed the column with their faculty titles, but neglected to inform readers that every one of them is also a member of the dentistry school administration, most being department chairs and associate deans.

Furthermore, the authors of the guest column wrote it before the news story was finished. Its purpose was clearly an effort by the dentistry school administration to drown out criticism by talking past the point.

The column’s failure to acknowledge any real criticisms of the dentistry school is characteristic of the arrogance we criticized them of last week. The relentlessly positive perspective of the column shows either a great deal of hubris or a cynical commitment to projecting a certain image of the dentistry school regardless of the reality.

Provost Tom Sullivan and Vice President for Health Sciences Aaron Friedman also wrote a letter last week called “Interim dean selected fairly,” which ran Nov. 2. This letter also missed the point and failed to address criticisms of the dentistry school.

The letter argued that faculty were consulted before a decision to hire an interim dean was made. The criticism, however, was that those faculty were simply given lip service and ignored. At one point in the letter, Sullivan and Friedman write, “We … [received a] list of nominees from a segment of the faculty. [Interim dentistry school dean Judith] Buchanan was on that list.” She was indeed; she was last.

The combination of these pieces shows an administration not only unwilling to address its problems, but one so arrogant that it will not even acknowledge it has any. Instead, it resorts to attempts to change the discussion and confuse the public with lies of omission.

The administration of the dentistry school clearly places a higher priority on managing its public perception than on seriously addressing its problems.

It is important to note that this attitude is not specific to the dentistry school. Many areas of the University of Minnesota and its administration have been more committed to improving the perception of the University than its actual quality.

Undoubtedly this attitude has trickled down from former President Bob Bruininks’ administration’s strategic positioning agenda which sought to improve key statistics that factored into national rankings more than it did on improving real quality.

A new president has now taken office, giving the administration a chance to change course and renew its focus on matters of substance instead of superficiality. Karen Hanson will also replace Tom Sullivan as Provost at the beginning of 2012, and the dentistry school will be hiring a permanent replacement for former dean Patrick Lloyd, who was responsible for many of its problems.

We hope this new set of leaders brings more humble leadership that is more willing to analyze itself critically in a genuine attempt to improve.

Our current administrative leaders have shown they would rather deny a problem’s existence than solve it. We are profoundly disappointed in them for their cynical spin campaign and for placing their own reputations above the good of the school they serve.

We look to the future for administrators who aren’t afraid to engage with criticism seriously, admit faults and work sincerely to fix them. Our current leaders in the dentistry school, including Sullivan, have failed on all these counts.

2011-11-11T08:11:00.006-06:00

OFF COURSE IN HIGHER EDUCATION

My friend, Mr. Michel McNabb, writes:

At the November 1, 2011 meeting of the Senate Committee on Finance & Planning the deans of the law school and the business school again asserted that state appropriations provide less than 10% of the annual operating budgets of their schools. This assertion fails to identify the senior administrators and the Regents as the persons who actually determine the allocation of state appropriations to those schools.

In fiscal year 2012 the University will receive $484 million in state appropriations for its general fund. Senior administrators (with the approval of the Regents) made the decision to allocate less than 1% of the state appropriations to the law school ($3.6 million) and to the business school ($3.3 million). The state legislature does not direct the allocation of those funds. See question (8) in Questions of Value.

What is the response of the deans to this decision of central administration to allocate a minuscule percentage of state appropriations to their schools? They tell the committee that "they have the capacity to raise tuition." Once again we have the reliance on tuition, which senior administrators describe as "the revenue stream with the highest potential for significant, long-term growth." See section (1) in $tate of the University--A Parent's Perspective.

This skyrocketing tuition is creating a generation of indentured students who are also confronted with a dismal job market. See the October 14, 2011 report on Generation Debt in the Star-Tribune.

There are alternatives to endless increases in tuition. The senior administrators could allocate a larger percentage of the state appropriations to pay the operating costs of the schools and colleges. They could use part of the accumulated surplus of more than half a billion dollars in revenue that they continue to carry forward from year to year. See Question (7) in Questions of Value. They could make substantial reductions in the costs of administration that have exploded since 2005. See section 3 in University Inc. Part II.

Have the emergence of the corporate university and the pursuit of personal wealth replaced the ideal of public service? Have the leaders of a non-profit institution of higher education lost their moral compass when they believe themselves entitled to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual compensation and benefits? Should their decisions require students (and their parents) to incur tens of thousands of dollars in debt that will take years to repay? See the the Conclusion and the Postscript to $tate of the University--A Parent's Perspective.

We are now off course in higher education. See the recent essay entitled Our Universities--Why Are They Failing? by Princeton University history professor Anthony Grafton. We can begin to find our way back by restoring the ideal of public service, by recognizing that an education in the liberal arts is more than vocational training, and by requiring our professors to be as devoted to the students in their classrooms as they are to their research.

Michael W. McNabb
University of Minnesota B.A. 1971; J.D. 1974
University of Minnesota Alumni Association life member

2011-11-10T12:42:00.003-06:00

A Double Standard on Financial Aid?

An open letter to administrators at

the University of Minnesota

A former employee of the Academic Affairs and Provost office writes to Robert McMaster and Tom Sullivan.

From the Minnesota Daily:

By Andy Howe - University lecturer

Although I am a past employee of your office, I am writing today as a concerned alumnus of the University of Minnesota and taxpayer in the state. I received my Ph.D. in higher education from the University in 2009, so I have a keen interest in the integrity of the land grant mission of the University. As a taxpayer, I want to make sure that my contribution to the University is aligned with this mission and provides broad access to undergraduate education.

Lately, policies on which you have led give me concern about access to undergraduate education and integrity of the land grant mission. Let me first get a few things out of the way. I am fully aware of the competition in higher education, federal and state cuts, the research focus of the University, middle-class affordability and the needs of multiple stakeholders.

These concerns are substantial and need to be addressed.

The University is also a land grant university, so intersections of choice, access, affordability and student success are equally if not more important to consider.

Although many universities have made access and affordability a priority, low-income students are being priced out of public, four-year institutions. You and others have mentioned that the University is consistent with other public universities with tuition, fees and institutional financial aid. But if there is a national issue with institutional policy, comparing the University with others who are also pricing out low-income students does nothing but present a half-truth.

Because of recruiting strategies, decreased need-based aid, increased merit-aid, caps on enrollment, increased tuition and fees, and a host of other policy decisions on which you have led, what has been the outcome? Recently, Washington Monthly ranked universities on social mobility (enrolling and graduating students on Pell Grants). The University was ranked one of the lowest in the Big Ten and in all flagship universities. The University also has one of the highest achievement gaps in the Big Ten and in all flagship universities.

What then is the long-term strategy for choice, access, affordability and for low-income student success at the University? I am an advocate for balanced — but not open — admission, beneficial financial aid policies, and transparency and accountability to these policies at public institutions.

With that said, you both have mentioned and written that institutional financial aid has grown substantially over the past several years, yet I can find no clear evidence that indicates that the percentage of out-of-pocket expenses (net price as a percentage of income) from those families making $30,000 or less has decreased substantially. How does the growth of merit-based institutional aid compare to the growth of need-based institutional aid from 2008 until present? Over the same time period, what is the average net price as percentage of annual income for students from families at $30,000, $70,000 and $110,000?

You both take pride in the increase of ACT scores and high school rank of entering first-year students and hope to continue these increases. As Vice Provost Robert McMaster stated in a recent Minnesota Daily article, “Aside from Carleton College and Macalester College, we [the University] probably are the most difficult to get into in the state of Minnesota.” Taking pride in limiting access at a land grant university is not one of the founding principles of the Morrill Act of 1862, which established land grant universities. President Eric Kaler has said that one of the things he had learned in his 100 days of listening was that many people feel the University is “aloof and arrogant.” Policies and statements like McMaster’s do nothing to change the public perception.

McMaster also stated in the most recent Board of Regents meeting that he and others “pressure colleges when we see that they are not performing to our expectations.” When it comes to informing the public and being accountable to the land grant mission, it appears you are not holding yourselves to the same standard.

2011-11-07T10:40:00.000-06:00

Legal Education and the Heir of Slytherin

The always interesting Dean of the University of Louisville Law School, Jim Chen, writes on MoneyLaw:

[Jim Chen is a former U of M law school prof. The following material is selected from the complete post that is well worth reading. Emphasis mine.]

... I still believe what John Steinbeck said in East of Eden: There is one story in the world, and only one. Whether the setting is Will Rogers High, Hogwarts, or the law school of your choosing, formal schooling often pits Socs against Greasers and Purebloods against Mudbloods. The narrative is one of epic, ceaseless competition between elites and outsiders.

If you've managed to miss one of the greatest cultural phenomena of the last generation, let me introduce you to the magical world of Harry Potter... In the mind of the Dark Lord, only those born to pure-blooded witches and wizards deserve to command the potions, incantations, and spells of his profession.

All of this prepares me to open one of the darkest chambers of secrets in law and legal education. Law schools and the country's largest law firms have long occupied — and jealously guarded — the most coveted corners in the American legal profession. BigLaw draws its talent from the most highly credentialed students emerging from our law schools. Without elite grades, no student stands a chance of scoring a BigLaw interview, let alone a BigLaw job.

At some schools, BigLaw does dig deeper in the talent pool. ... At schools such as Harvard, Duke, or Vanderbilt, or Virginia, Michigan, or Berkeley, BigLaw historically has been willing to interview a broader spectrum of students. At schools that historically operated under a municipal charter and have dedicated themselves to the higher training and useful education of local youth, BigLaw has been decidedly pickier.

This is not an altogether flattering portrayal. I admit as much. In fairness, I will say this: My own corner of the profession, legal education, has been complicit in this elitist exercise. ... If anything, academia has doubled down on BigLaw's bet. We draw our own faculty ranks from an even more selective pool of candidates. BigLaw and American law schools have anointed their superstars on the basis of schools attended and grades attained when these lawyers and professors were students in their twenty-something years...

Excessive emphasis on pedigree over performance has pushed the legal profession to a point of reckoning. ... Law schools can no longer indulge the conventional assumption that they can focus entirely on training their students to "think like lawyers," without attention to concrete skills or the pragmatic nuances of actual practice. Every BigLaw hire that flames out after two unproductive years should prompt honest recognition of the limits of elite credentials. Honesty about the limits of the existing model of legal education should prompt all law schools to ensure their students a true return on their educational investment ... to be as fully prepared to serve clients and deliver results as a lawyer can be upon passing the bar exam.

This is not a jeremiad against legal education and elite law firms. ... I believe wholeheartedly in the transformative power of legal education, motivated by a passion for teaching and informed by serious scholarship. For me to believe otherwise would force me to declare my own life an evil, bankrupt waste, and I emphatically believe that I have not lived in vain.

...the benefits of working in BigLaw or the legal academy affirmatively compound the heavy burden that its defenders must discharge. Those of us who care most about the legal profession and have gained the most from it owe a corresponding duty to take a hard look at the weaknesses of our shared calling. Whatever personal or professional inconvenience we may incur, those of us at the pinnacle of professional success must tell the truth.

How shall we make things better? ... Speak the truth and point to hope. This message combines my own experience with insights from history and literature .... The world of Harry Potter is one that pits the virtuous Order of the Phoenix against Lord Voldemort's degenerate Death Eaters. Those stories, real and fantastic, teach us useful lessons. Extreme opponents often become agents of reconciliation. The greatest breakthrough between the Communist world and the West came when Richard Nixon, the consummate Cold Warrior, visited "Red" China. By contrast, those who prevail through conflict and confrontation often do so by virtue of some close connection to the enemy, perhaps even kinship. At the risk of spoiling J.K. Rowling's books and the movies inspired by them, I will tell you that Harry Potter ultimately defeats Voldemort on the strength of a mysterious connection that links the boy wizard to the Dark Lord's most treacherous powers.

And so it must be that a critic of elite legal education, to be credible, must be one who has succeeded by its terms, both in school and in later professional life. With your indulgence, I'll make my argument very personal. In my twenties I enjoyed a double dose of privilege and prestige: Not only did I attend Harvard Law School alongside the future President of the United States; I also clerked at the Supreme Court of the United States. These experiences gave me the privilege of choosing between BigLaw and the legal academy. I spent many hours in my thirties divining some of the law's most intellectually challenging mysteries, from the use of macroeconomic indicators in utility regulation to the legal protection of biodiversity and functioning ecosystems as information platforms. All those things came to me, in large measure, because I turned in fantastic performances in torts, federal courts, and international business transactions. Those grades predicted intelligence of some relevance to the legal profession, and I worked my hardest to make good on the promise of my youth. But the task to which I have devoted my forties, that of managing a complex educational institution for the betterment of its students and the clients they will ultimately serve, is one that transcends my grades, my diplomas, my clerkships, and even the articles on my curriculum vitae. Everything I've done in life didn't get graded in law school. Grades were then. Life is now. As a firmly committed Muggle, I am no heir of Slytherin. Fate did bestow upon me a bundle of legal education's most elite experiences. And this is what I have learned since graduation: There is no value in prestige or credentials. There is only performance, and those who have the wisdom to prize it.

2011-11-02T20:15:00.000-05:00

Minnesota ranks 4th in student debt

Surprise, surprise. This whining dinosaur has been complaining about student debt for years.

From the Strib:

College students who graduated in 2010 piled up an average of $25,250 in student loan debt, showed a report released Thursday. That's up about 5 percent from the previous year.

Minnesota graduates had more debt than that -- $29,058, for the fourth highest average in the country, according to the Project on Student Debt's annual report. The state also ranked fifth in the proportion of students with debt, at 71 percent.

Last year, Minnesota ranked sixth in average debt and third in percentage of students with debt. Of the state's colleges and universities included in the report, Minneapolis College of Art and Design graduates carried the greatest average debt: $44,385. About 88 percent of its 2010 grads had debt.

The report does not include for-profit colleges, whose graduates traditionally have higher debt loads than their public and private nonprofit counterparts.

The Project on Student Debt notes that nation's growing student debt loads coincide with a record 9.1 percent unemployment rate. But "that's still less than half the unemployment rate for young adults with only a high school diploma," the report said.

2011-11-01T12:04:00.002-05:00

Yet another Spin Doctor Gives an "Official"

Answer to Questions about Homeopathy

At the University of Minnesota

From the Minnesota Daily:

"Simply put, we do not teach, nor advocate, for homeopathy in any way, nor does the University as an institution."

Tony Baisley

communications director

Center for Spirituality & Healing/School of Nursing

I guess it is cheaper to hire another spin doctor than to fix things?

My response:

Mr. Baisley-

Please tell that to the Director of the Center for Spirituality and Healing.

Director of University of Minnesota Center for Spirituality and Healing Writes Approvingly of Homeopathy

http://ptable.blogspot.com/201...

In a letter to the Daily
(link: http://www.mndaily.com/2010/02...

"As a scientist [sic] and nurse, I read with great interest an article that appeared in the medical journal Chest (Frass et al., 2005). This is a peer-reviewed scientific journal read by many physicians and surgeons. It is published by the American College of Chest Surgeons (no slouch of a group). The article describes a study (a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trial) comparing critically-ill patients on mechanical ventilators in Intensive Care Units who received a substance called potassium dichromate with those who did not. It was found that the patients who received potassium dichromate had less thick, stringy tracheal secretions and were able to get off the ventilator more quickly and out of the ICU. Clinical outcomes like that are important. Potassium dichromate is a homeopathic remedy."
________

This hogwash has been thoroughly debunked, see: http://ptable.blogspot.com/201...

It is time for the Academic Health Center to own up about homeopathy at Minnesota. Homeopathy has no place in evidence based medicine.

"We do not teach, nor advocate, for homeopathy in any way, nor does the university as an institution."

Mr. Baisley, go to the home page of the University of Minnesota and type "homeopathy" into the search engine. Or just click this link:

http://bit.ly/tT2cSd

You are practicing what is known as the Big Lie technique. As Orwell put it in 1984: “To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient..."

William B. Gleason, U of M med school faculty and alum

2011-10-31T12:09:00.000-05:00

Concerned Faculty Member at University of Minnesota

Dental School Comments

A faculty member at the U of M writes about the latest scandal at the Academic Health Center:

The information in the article is unfortunate, but true.

Concerns were registered with the University administration during Lloyd's Dean's review, but nothing happened.

The fact is that the University administration cared more about the fact that he could raise money and railroad through initiatives than whether he could effectively engage the faculty and staff or create a healthy, collegial working environment that could capitalize on the strengths of all of the faculty and staff rather than just his chosen few yes-people.

When he left, the faculty sent a loud and clear message to the University administration that better collaborative leadership and communication was seriously needed, and the University responded by appointing the least capable candidate, who in only a few weeks showed that she could not communicate with the faculty or even understand basic University policies and procedures.

When people raise objections about the poor leadership of a public-service organization and no one listens, why is anyone surprised that it winds up in the news media?

2011-10-31T08:51:00.001-05:00

Open wide, this might hurt a little...

School of Dentistry must change - from the Minnesota Daily:

As the search for a permanent dean continues, faculty sources have called out current and past administrators and are waiting to see if their voices will be heard.

Alleged intimidation and favoritism have embittered faculty at the University of Minnesota’s School of Dentistry for years, interviews show.

In extensive interviews with the Minnesota Daily, current and former faculty members alleged years of what they claim was oppressive leadership within the school. The concerns are ongoing.

Personal relationships and favoritism continue to factor into administrative hiring decisions.

Former Dean Patrick Lloyd’s autocratic decision-making and micromanagement alienated some faculty members.

Fear of retribution suppressed disagreement and debate.

Contradicting faculty and student input, University officials appointed Judith Buchanan — an administrator that Lloyd recruited and who came to the University in 2005 — as interim dean.

The controversy intensified in early August when Buchanan announced she would appoint her husband to a leadership position in the school, raising concerns of nepotism.

As the search for a permanent dean continues, many faculty members are clinging to hope that a new administration will reverse the climate they say permeated the school under Lloyd.

In an email to some faculty, professor Muriel Bebeau criticized Buchanan for promoting her own husband.

“The issue our department is facing is something worth fighting about,” Bebeau wrote in the email obtained by the Daily.

“If we hope to have some say in the next administration of this school, the time to speak up is now.”

An empty vote

If dentistry faculty members had their first choice, professor Mike Rohrer would be interim dean.

The process of temporarily filling Lloyd’s position started in late May. Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost Tom Sullivan asked faculty, staff, students and alumni for input. When more than 90 faculty members voted for their favored candidates, many thought the results would be a deciding factor in the search.

Rohrer came out on top, and a group of faculty members congratulated him on what they presumed to be his upcoming appointment.

But without explanation, Judith Buchanan was named interim dean. She had placed last out of the four eligible faculty candidates and wasn’t one of the three choices students submitted to Sullivan in a separate vote.

“I couldn’t understand the choice,” said associate professor Thomas Larson, who supported Rohrer. “But I wasn’t the one picking.”

Sullivan said that ultimately he was required to listen to all stakeholders. The faculty’s vote was only one of many factors.

But it’s not just the appointment process that frustrated some faculty members. Buchanan was often absent for travel and outside consulting work, said one clinical faculty member who requested confidentiality because of concerns of losing his job. Several professors, including Larson and Bebeau, said Buchanan changed curriculums without adequately consulting faculty.

“The people that she works with most closely really didn’t support her as an idea for interim dean,” the clinical faculty member said.

But the widespread fear was that Buchanan would continue the same purportedly repressive atmosphere many said existed under Lloyd, her predecessor.

Divisive leadership

More than 100 dentistry school students and faculty members gathered in McNamara Alumni Center in June 2008 for the memorial service of a respected colleague who died of a heart attack. Dean Patrick Lloyd was not among them.

Lloyd often clashed with Charlie Schachtele, a former associate dean, and at the request of Schachtele’s widow, Lloyd was asked not to attend.

“I knew that Charlie would turn in his grave to have Lloyd involved with his memorial service,” family friend Richard Simonsen wrote in an emailed response to a Daily inquiry

Throughout his seven-year tenure as dean, sources said Lloyd attempted to control every aspect of the school — from dictating course content to picking paint colors. People who spoke out against his vision often felt they risked retribution.

Several faculty members said that when Lloyd was upset with employees in the school, he would sometimes call them into his office to scream and curse at them.

The Daily repeatedly sought comment from Lloyd for this article. He responded with a letter through an attorney.

Among his responses, Lloyd called one faculty member’s claim of being yelled at a “personal perception” that didn’t match his own recollection.

Before a faculty position opened for hire in 2008, Lloyd asked the search committee to tailor the position’s posting to a person who ultimately got the job, said Nelson Rhodus, a dentistry professor on the committee. Rhodus then withdrew his participation in the search and called the process a “total farce.”

‘Nothing to be done’

If dentistry faculty members were so upset with the school’s leadership and direction, why didn’t top-level University officials step in?

It’s unclear how many complaints made it to them.

Employees said they thought anonymous reporting wouldn’t result in action and wouldn’t stay anonymous, raising concerns about the possibility of reprisal.

The handful of complaints that did make it to Frank Cerra, Lloyd’s former supervisor, were evaluated and discussed with Lloyd.

“Usually, we found the allegations to be unfounded or misunderstandings,” Cerra, former vice president for health sciences, wrote in an email.

Cerra refused to elaborate in a follow-up phone interview if any of the investigations showed that faculty members’ allegations were founded.

Although they only supervised him directly for seven months, the two administrators that currently oversee the dentistry dean said they didn’t hear any concerns until after Lloyd announced he was leaving.

“Not once, not once in that time did I receive any complaint about Patrick Lloyd,” Provost Sullivan told the Daily.

Aaron Friedman, who took over for Cerra in January, said he didn’t receive any complaints either. He said “it is impossible to believe” that seven years of complaints would fail to reach senior administrators like him.

Four tenured dentistry professors, including Nelson Rhodus, met with Sullivan in June to address their concerns about Lloyd’s leadership style.

Rhodus planned the meeting before Lloyd announced he was leaving, and kept it when the faculty heard of the dean’s departure.

Sullivan and Friedman referenced the meeting only to comment that, “at that point, there was nothing to be done.”

But Rhodus and his colleagues felt the opposite — it was their chance to insist that, in its search for the next dean, the administration use Lloyd’s leadership style as an example of what not to look for.

For the school to get back on track and move forward, Rhodus said, selecting a markedly different dean would be crucial.

Married with benefits?

Buchanan’s interim position, expected to last about a year, could begin a new era in the school.

But one of her first acts may have marred her deanship from the start.

During her second week, Buchanan announced in a dentistry school newsletter that she would promote her husband, Peter Berthold, to interim chairman of the Department of Primary Dental Care.

Soon after Buchanan’s announcement, faculty liaisons Jill Stoltenberg and David Bereiter started hearing concerns from across the school. They received more than a dozen email or in-person complaints and met with faculty members, they said.

They brought the objections to Buchanan and asked her to reconsider the decision.

Bereiter, chairman of the school’s Faculty Consultative Committee, told Buchanan that promoting her husband could become her “legacy” as interim dean.

Buchanan was surprised to hear that many considered the appointment problematic.

When Bereiter and Stoltenberg left the meeting, “there was no assurance that anything was going to change,” Bereiter said.

In an email the next day, Buchanan called Bereiter and Stoltenberg’s points “valid,” but wrote, “I see it differently.”

“I had enormous hope when I thought we were going to get interim leadership that would restore faculty governance,” professor Muriel Bebeau said in an interview. “But, you know, the first act is the failure of consultation.”

Buchanan and top administrators said Berthold’s managerial and accreditation experience warranted the post. Buchanan said he would not have received a pay raise.

“There was not another person I felt comfortable with asking to lead as chair,” Buchanan said.

Associate professor Steve Shuman balked at that explanation.

“That’s the issue — comfortable,” he said. “What does she mean by comfortable?

“I think it’s best to find leadership that everyone’s comfortable with.”

Top administrators questioned the timing of the announcement, which came before a key step: The nepotism management plan for Buchanan’s promotion of her husband had not yet been established.

University President Eric Kaler said Buchanan “got ahead of herself in making that announcement.”

Sullivan also called the move “premature,” but said Buchanan conformed with University nepotism policies as she worked to finalize the appointment.

“I think that I probably would have tried to come up with a different solution,” Buchanan said of her intention to appoint her husband. “I didn’t anticipate so much concern about it.”

When Sullivan learned of Buchanan’s plans to promote her husband — nearly two weeks after she told faculty — he halted the appointment and called a meeting.

The resolution was to have four division heads, including Berthold, lead the department to avoid giving Berthold sole decision-making power.

The nepotism management plan was signed more than two weeks after Berthold began his new leadership position. Under the plan, administrators meet to discuss his activities twice a month. To bypass his wife, Berthold reports directly to AHC Vice President Friedman.

Berthold declined multiple requests for comment.

About 40 faculty members gathered for an emergency meeting Sept. 27 to discuss concerns about Buchanan, her appointments, faculty governance and the permanent dean search.

Faculty members still had concerns about the four-person committee leading the Primary Dental Care department. They asked that faculty leaders bring their concerns to Buchanan directly a second time.

In mid-October, faculty leaders from multiple departments told Buchanan that the committee was a departure from the school’s constitution, which states that a “chairperson” will lead each department.

“It’s a person — it’s not a group, it’s not plural,” Bereiter said.

Technically, the link between Buchanan and Berthold has been cut, but he still has personal access to the dean that “could be influential in the running of the department,” said Stoltenberg, secretary of the faculty’s council.

Buchanan listened and responded civilly to faculty points at the meeting, Stoltenberg said.

But when Buchanan left, faculty leaders still had no idea if anything would change.

‘Things are really heating up’

On Sept. 1, Judith Buchanan forwarded an email she had received from University faculty to Patrick Lloyd at Ohio State.

She shared with him faculty concerns about the Department of Primary Dental Care’s committee leadership. The faculty email was originally sent to Buchanan and top administrators.

Above faculty criticisms in the email, Buchanan wrote a personal note to Lloyd.

“Patrick, Things are really heating up as you can see. Wish I was there. Judith.”

As they raise their concerns, faculty members wonder if anything will change under Buchanan, and eventually with the selection of a new dean.

Buchanan told the Daily she’s trying to set a new tone.

“We are making an effort to do things a bit differently, just because I’m a different person than Dean Lloyd was,” Buchanan said in an interview two months after she took office.

“He was a bit of a micromanager,” she said.

Faculty members hope for “a true partnership” with the interim dean, professor Bereiter said.

So far, it’s unclear if Buchanan will act on their concerns.

Faculty members are rallying their ideas for the future of the School of Dentistry and say strengthening their role in governance is key.

They have grown weary of being ignored, professor Thomas Larson said, and the administration must do more than “pay lip service” to the faculty.

“It is not a small vocal minority,” he said. “It is, in fact, a majority.”

2011-10-24T12:26:00.001-05:00

Duke Powell, a Paramedic and Former Legislator,

Raises an Interesting Issue About Redistricting

Although Duke and I are on opposite sides of the fence politically, he is a decent and knowledgeable person.

I thank him for giving me permission to quote him: (emphasis mine)

I question the Constitutional authority of either the Governor or the Courts in matters concerning redistricting. While I’m not a lawyer, I am able to read. The MN Constitution seems clear:

“Article IV Sec. 3. CENSUS ENUMERATION APPORTIONMENT; CONGRESSIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES; SENATE DISTRICTS. At its first session after each enumeration of the inhabitants of this state made by the authority of the United States, the legislature shall have the power to prescribe the bounds of congressional and legislative districts.”

Nearly all of you might react to this by saying, “But the Governor has the right to approve or veto all bills passed by the Legislature.”

My response is “Yeah, except for when he doesn’t.” Consider this section:

“Article III Section 1. DIVISION OF POWERS. The powers of government shall be divided into three distinct departments: legislative, executive and judicial. No person or persons belonging to or constituting one of these departments shall exercise any of the powers properly belonging to either of the others except in the instances expressly provided in this constitution.”

The powers of redistricting were expressly granted to the Legislative body. The Governor, nor the courts, are given a role.

To further buttress this argument, consider this section:

“Article IV Sec. 24. PRESENTATION OF ORDERS, RESOLUTIONS, AND VOTES TO GOVERNOR. Each order, resolution or vote requiring the concurrence of the two houses except such as relate to the business or adjournment of the legislature shall be presented to the governor and is subject to his veto as prescribed in case of a bill.”

As we see, there are exceptions to the power of the Governor to veto as they “relate to the business… of the Legislature.” It is my position that the MN Constitution has made redistricting the “business” of the Legislature.

Very interesting analysis...

2011-10-17T13:22:00.001-05:00

Does the University of Minnesota

Need an Academic Health Center?

Excerpts from a frank discussion, finally, at the Faculty Consultative Committee:

Faculty Consultative Committee
Thursday, October 6, 2011

3.    AHC Faculty Consultative Committee Response to the AHC Executive Steering Committee Report

    Professor Cramer now welcomed Professors Lytle, Oakes, and Weckwerth to the meeting and turned to Professor Campbell, chair of the AHC Faculty Consultative Committee (AHC FCC), to lead a discussion of the report from the AHC FCC. The report follows, between the * * *.

* * *

On September 1, 2011, the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC) charged the Academic Health Center (AHC) FCC with preparing a formal response to the draft report of the AHC Review Executive Steering Committee. In terms of a formal response the AHC FCC was asked to address the following questions, as appropriate:

1.    What recommendations in the report does the committee endorse without change?

2. What recommendations does the AHC FCC believe are ill advised? What rationale led the AHC FCC to a conclusion different from that of the review committee?

3. What recommendations would benefit from specific modifications; what are those modifications, and what motivated the committee’s thinking in suggesting any changes?

4. What issues are not addressed in the report that the AHC FCC deems sufficiently important to warrant additional scrutiny, either prior to finalization of the report or at some later stage?

5.
Members of AHC FCC are Colin Campbell, chair, Susan Berry, Cynthia Gross, Leslie Lytle, Paul Olin, Ned Patterson, and Cheryl Robertson.

Background: Earlier this year, President Bruininks and Provost Sullivan charged an Executive Steering Committee with conducting a comprehensive review of the AHC. The purpose of the review was to examine and define the appropriate role, mission, and value of the AHC and to make recommendations on how the AHC should be best organized in order to ensure that academic programs are properly supported, that there is no duplication of administrative services, and to make certain that interdisciplinary centers are appropriately aligned.

On September 7th and 16th, 2011, the AHC FCC met and discussed at-length the draft report of the AHC Review Executive Steering Committee. Additionally, as suggested by the FCC, AHC FCC members made every effort to solicit opinions from a broad cross-section of AHC faculty, including school governance groups. Based on those discussions and input received, the AHC FCC identified the following:

• There was widespread agreement with the Executive Steering Committee’s Recommendation 1 that the AHC should continue to serve as the convening academic and administrative unit for the schools of Dentistry, Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy, Public Health, and Veterinary Medicine.

• There was general agreement with Recommendation 2, the AHC should report to a Vice President for Health Sciences reporting to the President, and that the Vice President should focus on interdisciplinary education, research and clinical programs. However, the report lacks specificity regarding these domains, and did not propose a vision to direct defining its boundaries.

• The response to Recommendation 3 was mixed. With the exception of the Medical School, there was agreement that the Medical School Dean should report to the Provost on broad academic issues and not directly to the President. As noted above, the interface between academics and clinical education and research has not been defined.

• The AHC FCC found widespread support for Recommendation 4, to split the position of Vice President for Health Sciences and Dean of the Medical School into distinct and separate positions. More outside-the-box thought should be given to looking at how to handle these positions such as the Medical School FAC’s suggestion to have the Medical School Dean also serve as the Vice President for Medical Services (VPMS), and have a separate Vice President for Health Sciences (VPHS) position focusing on interdisciplinary, interprofessional and intercollegiate programs that cut across the AHC colleges and other University collegiate units engaged in health science education and research. [See attached letter from the Medical School Faculty Advisory Council (FAC)].

• Recommendation 5 was generally viewed as acceptable.

• Recommendation 6 was generally viewed as desirable.

• The AHC FCC found widespread skepticism and unmet expectations regarding Recommendations 7 and 8. The report did not go far enough in sharpening the focus or in leveraging enterprise resources. The report calls for continuation of centers that are “essential and unique” and services/functions that are “critical and unique” to the AHC, but supports the status quo without delineating a framework for distinguishing what is essential, critical and unique.

• The Executive Steering Group’s charge called for broad representation from AHC staff, faculty and University leaders on each of the sub-teams to ensure that there is a breadth of expertise represented. However, despite requests by both the AHC FCC and the FCC, there was inadequate non-administrative faculty representation on the sub-teams. As a result, inadequate rank and file representation served to undermine the credibility of the report.

• The Executive Steering Committee’s recommendations were unremarkable. The report lacked vision and failed to put forward a plan to make the AHC better.

•    The report was vague, ambiguous and lacked transparency. For example, it lacked financial data to support its recommendations. In addition to finances, the report did not fully address accountability, oversight or governance matters.

With regard to the FCC’s request to identify recommendations that are ill-advised or should be modified, it must be acknowledged that there was near-unanimous support for a focused AHC (Recommendations 1, 2 and 5) and separating the Dean of the Medical School from the AHC Vice President for Health Sciences (Recommendation 4). Recommendations 3 and 4 needed greater specificity of scope and rationale to guide implementation. With regard to Recommendations 7 and 8, the AHC FCC would like an independent body, including representation of faculty from all AHC colleges and external experts, to re-evaluate the findings and recommendations of the sub-teams given a significant number of their recommendations were overturned by the Executive Steering Committee without compelling rationale and supporting data. As previously noted, the credibility of the report was undermined by the narrow composition of the Executive Steering Committee. This re-review should begin by establishing a framework for assessing what is unique, critical and essential in order to optimally leverage enterprise-wide resources with the flexibility to meet unit-specific unique needs.

What was not addressed in the report? The report was Twin Cities-focused, and did not consider the coordinate campuses, although at least three AHC schools have major divisions at Duluth and Rochester. Finances and the size of the infrastructure of the AHC were not adequately addressed. Data on the size, organization and functions of the AHC, separate from its colleges and centers, was omitted as well.

In conclusion, the AHC FCC as a group, and, on behalf of the collective faculty, there were significant concerns about the report. Most notably, we question the degree to which representation of the faculty was achieved. We also felt that the report lacked details that would address accountability, oversight, and governance. The response to our solicitation of comments also reflected the divide between the Medical School and the other AHC schools about the role of the Medical School Dean. The AHC FCC agrees that the AHC should continue to serve the health science schools, and the Vice President for Health Sciences should be a separate position from the Dean of the Medical School. The report did not delve deep enough. There needs to be a more in-depth analysis of the current AHC structure and finances evaluated by an independent committee that includes direct input from more rank and file AHC faculty and staff. This report provided recommendations that were broad, non-specific and open to interpretation, and presented the status quo as acceptable while failing to present data to support that conclusion. We would like to see a report that puts forth a vision for how the AHC can best serve the University community in years to come.

* * *

    Professor Campbell said that there was broad consensus on the AHC FCC on many of the items in the report, including that the AHC should exist, at least in its ideal form, that there should be a vice president for the AHC, and that the positions of Dean of the Medical School and vice president should be split. The AHC FCC also found much of the report too vague.

Except for those individuals from the Medical School, the AHC FCC did not believe the Dean of the Medical School should report to the President, but should report to the Provost. The AHC FCC viewed skeptically the Executive Steering Committee report intimation that everything is working fine and there are no redundancies; there were few references to support the claim. To many, the report represented an opportunity to sketch out a vision for the AHC, but it did not do so.

There is also a concern that the report will not have as much impact as it might have because there were so few (one) faculty members involved. They are also concerned, Professor Campbell concluded, that many faculty members in the AHC will not respond to the report, which should not be interpreted to mean that they are happy with the way things are, but rather reflects a perception that their opinions will have no impact on the process, which is regarded as a fait accompli.

    Professor Cramer said he has noticed that the College of Liberal Arts, the College of Science and Engineering, and the College of Education and Human Development all have large numbers of undergraduates; perhaps they should be grouped as Colleges with Large Undergraduate Majors and Programs, or CLUMP, and CLUMP should be provided its own administrative structure to provide and coordinate services. The implementation of the CLUMP structure might be revenue-neutral from a University perspective, or then again it might not be--certainly staff in CLUMP colleges would probably appreciate having their own support structure, but, as matters stand they don't have that (instead they use central University services, e.g., room scheduling). Does there really need to be a wrapper around the six colleges called the AHC? Professor Campbell said that he could not respond effectively because he is not a clinician, and it is clinical activity that binds the AHC together. Professor Cramer said that there is no CLUMP office of student services, instead there is a University-wide office, even though it serves primarily CLUMP colleges; why cannot there be an office of clinical care that serves the entire University? It was noted that some AHC colleges have negligible clinical activity and some non-AHC units have substantial clinical activity, making the clinical activity justification seem weak.

     Professor Bitterman said that two points should be clarified with regard to any perceived discrepancies between the Medical School faculty view and the rest of the AHC colleges and schools. First, the Medical School Faculty Advisory Committee opinion (letter sent to the AHC FCC to be included in today's report to the FCC) is in close accord with the views expressed by the other AHC colleges, that deans should not become middle managers reporting to a vice president when, in the view of the faculty, they should be disciplinary leaders and run their colleges. Second, to address the unique challenges posed by the position of UMP in the University reporting structure, the Medical School FAC suggests a very different type of combined Dean-VP position than the one discussed in the AHC Executive Steering Committee Report.   Their suggestion is that the Dean of the Medical School also be the Vice President for Medical Services. In that capacity, the Dean-Vice President for Medical Services would report to the President only for matters related to the practice of medicine by UMP. This is a nearly-$1-billion-dollar-per-year activity that includes complex contractual relationships with private health care corporations, creating a significant risk that it could stray from the core University academic mission without direct input and guidance from the President. For all functions other than the practice of medicine, the Dean of the Medical School would be on par with all other deans and report to the Provost. This would focus the Dean of the Medical School only on the Medical School and practice plan, and not on the functions of any other college.

    Professor Pacala said that his concern is that there are already enough problems because the Medical School and UMP are run separately; if a separate reporting structure is created, that would further complicate coordination and synergy of the clinical mission of UMP and the academic mission of the Medical School.

    What has not come up, Professor Ziegler said, is the responsibility the AHC has for interprofessional education between the AHC schools. He said he does not know how far that has progressed, but it was to be explored and is a reason to retain the AHC. Professor Cramer observed that there are many intercollegiate programs at the University that do not have a special wrapper like the AHC. But they are problematic to set up with clinical settings, Professor Ziegler said, and the AHC umbrella makes it easier to do so—especially if the program will be out in the state.

    Professor Luepker said the report: (1) appears to be heavily driven by the word "clinical," but there are many people at the University who deliver clinical services but are not part of the AHC; and (2) of the AHC schools that are pulled together under that umbrella, his offers no clinical services and the paid clinical activity in Nursing and Pharmacy is trivial, the Committee just learned from Ms. Nunnally, so is the AHC limited to six schools, three of which do not have a clinical practice? With respect to who reports to whom, Professor Luepker said, deans report to the Provost, but for clinical activities they report to the Vice President for the AHC. If a college has no clinical activity, should it report only to the Provost? There are universities with health science schools but without an AHC and the schools/departments take care of clinical imperatives. He said he did not want the AHC to be driven only by clinical imperatives.

    Professor Ben-Ner asked about the linkages among clinical activities across Dentistry, Veterinary Medicine, Nursing, and so on; there are also schools that have professional degree programs that it was not found necessary to connect together for programmatic or financial reasons. Professor Lytle said that in the School of Public Health, their interdisciplinary work often extends far beyond the AHC. Administrative help from the AHC is not often required for the interdisciplinary work in which many faculty members in Public Health are involved.

    All of these comments, Professor Campbell said, are being made because there was no vision in the report; it was very pedestrian and contained nothing about what should be done. It is a lost opportunity. That is what he has heard over and over, Professor Bitterman agreed.

    One small counterweight, Professor Chomsky said, is that there has long been discussion about how interdisciplinary efforts do not work well all around the University; this report could have been an opportunity to improve that situation. She said she did not know if the answer is to get rid of the AHC cluster.

    Professor Chomsky asked about the AHC FCC report. In the case of recommendation three, it appears to be the Medical School versus everyone else. That division warrants more discussion. If there is no body to engage in "visioning," and given the criticisms of the report about vagueness, lack of faculty participation, and lack of specificity, should one outgrowth of this discussion be a recommendation for involving more faculty members in the process?

    Faculty apathy is not unique to the AHC, Professor Cramer said. Speaking more to the point of shared identity, he noted that there were eight faculty members from AHC colleges present at this meeting; he asked them how they respond when asked by people in the supermarket what they do: Do they say they are a professor in the AHC or a professor in, for example, the Medical School? The AHC is supposed to be a brand that has value. None of the eight said that they would identify themselves as being "in the AHC" as opposed to their college.

    Professor Pacala said he would identify himself as a professor in the Medical School. There exists a curious disconnect here: He recently attended a national conference on interprofessional education and the University of Minnesota was the "rock star" in the room, seen as the furthest along in developing it. Relatively speaking, the AHC is doing well; on an absolute scale, it is doing poorly. The potential of the AHC in interprofessional education is not being realized and there are few programs run or sponsored by the AHC.

    And some faculty members are very rigid, Professor Weckwerth observed. In some cases, Professor Pacala agreed, but he said he does some interprofessional education in spite of the AHC. There was a local conference on how the AHC could promote interprofessional education; he said then that what is needed is a common calendar and decent room scheduling. Neither has happened. Instead, he must call colleagues in the School of Nursing and the School of Public Health to work out times when an interprofessional class might be offered. They wanted a hard look in the mirror with this report and they didn't get one, Professor Pacala concluded.

    Professor Ben-Ner said that it's not possible to control the many units and departments of the University directly from the center, so there is a need for intermediate structures. Colleges are one way to decentralize, but those may also be too many. Structures like the AHC may be the answer, but it's not an obvious one (the University experimented with provostal areas for health, arts and sciences, and the professions in the 1990s). He said he did not believe the re-visioning of the AHC should be from the inside; it should be done externally, from above. It is very difficult to look beyond one's own horizon. He said he had no view about how an AHC might be structured—perhaps initially there were synergies that may not be present now. He suggested there could be opportunities for interprofessional and interdisciplinary synergies and cost savings from reconfiguration of the University collegiate structure and reorganization, something the current University administration is considering already. Professor Cramer agreed that the report seemed inward-looking even though the Executive Steering Committee included two vice presidents from outside the AHC. The report does not reflect the outside looking in, he agreed.

    Professor VandenBosch noted that Professor Pacala had commented that classroom scheduling does not work—but there is an AHC office of classroom management, as was discussed earlier in the consideration of AHC finances. This raises questions of why AHC classrooms are not managed by the central Office of Classroom Management, and whether central scheduling might be more efficient. As apparently the scheduling of AHC classrooms is not effective currently, she asked? Ask any professor, Professor Pacala responded.

Professor VandenBosch said she would like to hear more about how AHC colleges related to the non-AHC colleges. Not all clinical activities are in the AHC, she also observed, and AHC colleges interact with other colleges in research and teaching, as well. She said she would like to hear about the charge and the committee’s activities from the faculty member who served on the Executive Steering Committee—Professor Oakes.

    Professor Oakes reported that the gist of the charge to the Executive Steering Committee was to provide the new president with a richer understanding of the AHC and how it is integrated, or not, with the rest of the University. The group met many times, and like all committees, it aimed for a horse and got a camel; committee work is about compromise and, for better or worse, the products of committees are typically compromised products.

Regardless, those who drafted the report view this comment period as absolutely critical. Dr. Oakes applauded the AHC FCC for having done its job and he believed that this Committee (the FCC) is correct to consider the report at its own level. From his perspective, as an AHC professor and former member of this Committee, the elephant in the room is the question, "to what extent does the AHC help the University versus the University helping the AHC?" Are they going together or apart? What the President needs is an understanding of what the vision of the AHC is and whether or not it fits with the University. Professor Luepker tapped a nerve: When people say "clinical," non-clinical people shudder because lives are at stake, but that should not be used to dissuade serious reconsideration of the AHC structure.

    The big issue on the campus, Professor Oakes continued, is the Washington Avenue moat, that physical and metaphorical divide that seems to create two universities from one. There appears to be a lot of lost collaborative opportunity created by the current structures of the AHC. Professor Oakes wondered how the moat could be drained and increased efficiencies exploited.

    Those comments are not in the report, Professor Bitterman observed, and if they had been, the report would have been better received. How to make the University better is nowhere in the report nor are his insights, Professor Bitterman told Professor Oakes. This was an opportunity to get talent together to make the life and health sciences at the University better for its students and faculty, and he objected to the absence of vision, creativity, innovation, and information. This represents a missed opportunity. The final AHC Executive Steering Committee Report as written would be unscored in an NIH study section—or "not recommended for further consideration, streamlined."

    It was a committee of people who did their best, Professor Oakes said, and he expressed the hope that the Committee would pursue vigorously the topics FCC has raised. That is why the comment period is so important.

What are the obstacles to addressing Professor Bitterman's points, Professor VandenBosch asked? It is difficult for any group to look at itself, Professor Oakes said. A self-report is important, but an external review is also always needed; there needs to be external peer review. Professor Cramer is correct, Professor Oakes said: Among others, there were vice presidents with a University perspective on the Executive Steering Committee. And the group also included some very smart people who worked very hard to take a fresh look at things. But the basic challenge is that self-assessment is hard to do. An outside assessment is typically needed, he emphasized.

    Professor Bearinger said she agreed with Professors Bitterman and Luepker. She is in three of the six schools and would not identify herself as a professor in the AHC, but rather name the three schools. When Senior Vice President Cerra had an AHC-level meeting to announce that the positions of dean and vice president would be joined, it was talked about as a temporary arrangement. At the meeting, one person asked if any other dean could be the vice president; Dr. Cerra's answer was that any dean who could handle the clinical enterprise could take the position. That told the story, she said. When one looks at the dollars, clinical practice is a Medical School issue—and the tail should not be wagging the dog. When she looks at the list of services provided by the AHC (reviewed earlier in the meeting), where they are going is disproportional to the pie chart entries (alos provided earlier in the meeting) with the vast majority servicing the Medical School. If the services provided to the Medical School by the AHC were moved under the Medical School umbrella, what would remain? If there is to be an AHC, one should ask what should be remain in the AHC and what could/should be provided by central administration.

    Professors Bitterman and Oakes addressed a more philosophical point about the AHC, Professor Cramer said, while Professor Bearinger spoke to a more technical point about the AHC budget. He said he believes the services of AHC do need to be offered, and that if there are savings to be achieved, it is likely at the level of supervision, not of frontline workers. Professor Bitterman agreed; "we need doers and the financial question is about the number of watchers."

    Professor Bearinger said she has been involved in interdisciplinary education for the past two decades and, relative to the support she has received has come from Vice President Mulcahy and from the Graduate School, the AHC provided very little.

    Professor Luepker said there are a couple of elephants in the room. One is the lack of vision on how to make the AHC better; on that point, there is nothing there. He also had an "aha" moment during the discussion with Vice President Friedman and Ms. Nunnally earlier in the meeting: Why was the AHC bureaucracy built? Not for his school. It is for the $200 million in centers it oversees. There is an infrastructure there, with good people in it, but it is protecting itself. Professor Oakes said he chaired the subcommittee on centers; by and large, the centers found little benefit to the AHC umbrella per se. But Ms. Nunnally said that is why the AHC is needed, Professor Luepker recalled—but the Cancer Center has its own human resources, public relations, and information technology staff. Professor Oakes said he interviewed every center director and, if he recalled correctly, only one indicated they could not move from the AHC to the university level.
    When the AHC was created, Professor Weckwerth recalled, the issue was the hospital. Its time is now past. And the AHC could lose its shirt if it were linked to the hospital again.

    Professor Ziegler noted that the Medical School has an accreditation review in March and that in a mock review, it was said that the relationship between the dean and vice president needs to be clarified.

    Professor Chomsky said there is an odd disjuncture between the conversation at this meeting and the first bullet point in the AHC FCC report about a consensus view that the AHC should continue. Professor Campbell said that those on the AHC FCC have asked what the AHC aspired to do and how much it would cost. The broad perception is that it costs too much and does too little.

Professor Cramer said that he thinks it is critically important that FCC communicate to the President its thoughts on the AHC report, but that rather than simply sending a memo, it would be good to learn from the President what he might find most useful in terms of formal or informal input. He suggested that he and Professor Jacobs would talk with President Kaler about the report and ask what he would like to see from this Committee.

    Professor Cramer thanked Professors Lytle, Oakes, and Weckwerth for joining the meeting and adjourned it at 2:10.

A good start would be for the president to read this discussion.

2011-10-15T11:30:00.002-05:00

Do People Have a Moral Obligation

to Participate in Research?

My latest post on the Chronicle of Higher Education Brainstorm blog.

2011-10-13T15:30:00.002-05:00

Speaking Truth to Fiction

Bunsis Replies to Pfutzenreuter

Over at On Campus, MPR blogger Alex Friedrich reports:

Budget analyst: U’s administrative costs are still really high

Remember last Friday’s presentation on University of Minnesota finances by accounting professor Howard Bunsis, an officer in the American Association of University professors? He said spending on administration was a big factor in the rise of university costs. He was confronted at the session by the U’s CFO, Richard Pfutzenreuter, who said Bunsis was presenting a misleading picture.
.

Pfutzenreuter essentially said Bunsis had inflated administrative spending by including categories that either weren’t really administrative expenses, or were indirectly tied to instruction.

Here is Howard’s response to CFO Pfutzenreiter’s objections.

None of this would have changed my approach or conclusions.

Let me first report some more detail which supports the conclusion that administrative costs have increased significantly over the last several years.

This data is critical to rebutting any assumption that administrative costs went up for ancillary reasons. Do not (be persuaded) that there has not been an astronomical increase in administrative costs.

Per Audited Statements (all campuses)	2002	2010	%change
Institutional Support Salaries and Benefits	99,424	172,929	74%
Institutional Support Supplies and Service	4,232	61,379	1350%
Institutional Support Total	103,656	234,308	126%
Instruction Salaries and Benefits	457,444	582,468	27%

Per IPEDS (TC only)	2002	2009
Institutional Support Salaries and Benefits	88,757,000	190,237,439	114%
Instruction Salaries and Benefits	412,028,930	512,636,014	24%

If we take out the “accounting change” and other stuff that the CFO claims is in institutional support, then we still see a 74% increase in institutional support salaries and benefits. Per IPEDS at TC, institutional support salaries and benefits increased 114%. Notice how those increases dwarf the increases in instructional salaries and benefits. No amount of (persuading) can explain away those numbers.

Now, the supplies and services part of institutional support went up quite a bit. But here is the thing; there may be some additional items in there, but this is mostly the budgets of the upper-level administrators for services, supplies, travel, etc. It will be interesting to see what that yields.

Using the IPEDS data, comparing 2002 to 2009 (2010 is not yet available), the 114% increase in institutional support salaries and benefits is startling. When we get the 2010 and 2011 numbers, the same conclusion will be true: There has been a tremendous increase in administrative costs.

Now, I can do a year-by-year analysis as we proceed; for now, please use this data to rebut any conclusion that institutional support increased because of extraneous factors; there are too many administrators making too much money at the U.

$$$

2011-10-13T13:29:00.009-05:00

QUESTIONS OF VALUE

"The real issue is increasing the value that we the University bring to the State of Minnesota, to its stakeholders and to our students. Increasing that value, communicating it and demonstrating it will be the major goal of my presidency."

President Eric Kaler in the July 7, 2011 issue of the Pioneer Press. (Emphasis added.)

The financial analysis by Eastern Michigan University accounting professor Howard Bunsis raises questions about determining the value that the U of M provides to its current students and to the citizens of our state:

(1) What is the cost to the University of providing undergraduate education for one year?

(2) How did the administration determine the amount of undergraduate tuition increases over the past 10 years?

(3) What is the percentage increase in undergraduate tuition over the past 10 years adjusted for inflation?

Annual undergraduate tuition rose from $5,720 in 2002 to $11,650 in 2011, an increase of 133% (not adjusted for inflation). See p. 53 of the analysis.

The administration claims that the Net Price for undergraduate education has increased an average of 3.4% over the past 10 years. The calculation of Net Price does not reflect the economic reality facing students (and their parents) because it subtracts the amount of student loans that the students and their parents will be paying off for years to come. See section (2) of $tate of the University--A Parent's Perspective .

(4) What are the amounts of operating costs for research that have not been paid by grants over the past 10 years? What are the capital costs related to that research? See On The Hidden Cost of Research .

(5) What pays for research, education, public service, and financial aid?

This is the question proposed by U of M chief financial officer Richard Pfutzenreuter at the April 5, 2011 meeting of the Senate Finance & Planning Committee. See the final paragraph of Rube Goldberg Administration.

Students (and their parents) should know how tuition is used. State legislators should know how state appropriations are used.

(6) On what did the administration spend capital reserves funds over the past 10 years?
The projected balance for the central reserves fund was $10.3 million by the end of fiscal year 2011 (ending June 30, 2011). The balance should have been $24.7 million to comply with the policy of the Board of Regents. See section (1) of University Inc. Part II.

(7) How does the administration use the profit accumulated by the University?

The U of M Operating Budget for fiscal year 2012 adopted in June 2011 shows total revenues of $3.7 billion and total expenditures of just over $3 billion leaving a net balance of $674 million for ? See p.33 of the June 20, 2011 report of the Board of Regents. (The University received an additional $25 million for its general fund in the final state appropriations. See pp. 102-103 of the September 9, 2011 report of the Board of Regents).

The administration continues to carry forward from year to year this accumulated surplus of more than half a billion dollars rather than using these funds to pay expenses. Instead, the administration chooses to increase tuition, which it describes as "the revenue stream with the highest potential for significant, long term growth." See section (1) of $tate of the University--A Parent's Perspective.

(8) How does the administration decide on the amount of state appropriations to allocate to the separate colleges in the University?

In fiscal year 2012 the University will receive $484 million in state appropriations for its general fund (the Operations & Maintenance fund). See p. 103 of the September 9, 2011 report of the Board of Regents. The administration allocated $3.3 million to the business school and $3.6 million to the law school. See p. 81 of the June 20, 2011 report of the Board of Regents.

The senior administrators at the business school and the law school claim that state appropriations pay for less than 10% of the operating budgets of those schools. The fact is that the central administration makes those allocations, not the state legislature.

(9) How much will the administration spend in fiscal year 2012 on the separate categories of expenses that are classified as institutional support? Where is that information published?

Chief financial officer Pfutzenreuter described those categories at the April 5, 2011 meeting of the Senate Finance & Planning Committee. See pp. 3-4 of the report of the committee.

(10) What are the separate categories of expenses that are classified as research? instruction? academic support? student services? public service? How much will the administration spend on those separate categories in fiscal year 2012? Where is that information published?

(11) How does the administration determine the amount of the subsidy that it will provide to the athletic department each year from the general fund of the University?

In fiscal year 2010 the subsidy was $8 million; in fiscal year 2011 the subsidy was $7.8 million. See the link to the U of M budget in Expensive Icing.

Note that the subsidy is more than twice the amount that the administration allocates from the general fund to either the business school or the law school.

(12) How does the administration determine the priorities for HEAPR funds used to repair existing buildings? See Academic Facilities.

(13) How much did the administration spend on the Office of General Counsel over the past 10 years? How much did the administration spend on outside legal representation over the past 10 years?

In fiscal year 2011 the administration allocated $4.3 million to its Office of General Counsel. See p. 76 of the June 20, 2011 report of the Board of Regents. Of that amount the General Counsel paid $1.8 million to outside law firms. The administration paid an additional $4.4 million to outside law firms. See p. 15 of the 2011 annual report of the General Counsel.

The General Counsel states that a majority of the $6.2 million paid to outside counsel was for insurance defense and patent and technology commercialization. What are the most expensive claims against the University? Does the University have insurance to cover such claims? Does the insurance also cover the cost of defense?

(14) How many administrators receive annual compensation and benefits in excess of $100,000? How many receive annual compensation and benefits in excess of $200,000? See On The Cost of Administration.

(15) How much has the administration spent on advertising since 2007? What has the University received for this multi-million dollar expenditure? See section (2) of University Inc. Part II.

(16) Should the administration be engaged in non-academic business ventures? See section (1) of University Inc. Part II and Rethinking MoreU Park.

Michael W. McNabb

University of Minnesota B.A. 1971; J.D. 1974

University of Minnesota Alumni Association life member
.

2011-10-12T04:13:00.001-05:00

The False Budget Crisis at the University of Minnesota

From the Minnesota Daily

By Daily Editorial Board (emphasis mine)

Last Friday, the University of Minnesota chapter of the America Association of University Professors brought a financial analyst to the University to take a look at the University’s budget and true financial state. The analyst, Howard Bunsis, found some eye-opening results.

According to Bunsis, the University is actually in a strong financial state, a claim backed up by evidence of healthy financial ratios dealing with debt and reserve funds. Bunsis argues that the furloughs and pay cuts implemented under former President Bob Bruninks were unnecessary because of the University’s large amount of unrestricted reserve money, which could have been used to pay employees’ salaries during a temporary budget shortfall.

The University’s chief financial officer has argued over how some of the numbers are calculated, but the point of Bunsis’ analysis still stands. The University administration has used an atmosphere of budgetary crisis to make cuts wherever they want and discourage protest. They provide a false narrative that cuts to academics and salaries and wages are necessary because otherwise the budget will be in crisis. Meanwhile, spending on administration continues to rise, another point Bunsis highlights in his report.

The bottom line is that the University must cut its administrative spending. Spending on areas like instruction and faculty pay is being crowded out by a bloated and still growing administration. If cuts are even necessary given the University’s apparent strong financial footing, those cuts must come from administration first. Students, faculty and others in the University community should stand up to the false urgency of cuts and demand that any chopping start at the top.

Well said, and the evasiveness of Mr. Pfutzenreuter over the years has been disgraceful.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

2011-10-08T18:04:00.001-05:00

University of Minnesota claims start up success

on par with Harvard, Stanford, and Columbia.

From the Minnesota Daily:

"The review left no doubts about the office’s accomplishments — the OTC is spinning off startup companies on-par with Harvard, Columbia and Stanford universities, it concluded."

My comments on the Daily site:

Really? Somehow this seems incredibly unlikely....

What exactly does "on-par" mean?

“Stanford, to no one’s surprise, ranked No. 1 in a recent global “Top Ten” of university startup communities...Rounding out the top five were the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Cambridge, University of California-Berkeley and the Indian Institutes of Technology."

link: http://bit.ly/5C3CQB

See selected Harvard startups: http://bit.ly/qeBH9k

For facts and figures about Columbia's technology transfer operation, please see: http://techventures.columbia.e...

In the long run exaggerated claims, such as the intro quote, make the U look bad to the community... Citizens and legislators are aware of the start-up generating productivity of Stanford, Columbia, and Harvard.

To claim that the U is "on-par" with them is absurd.

$$$

2011-10-07T14:01:00.011-05:00

Chickens, Coming Home to Roost...

From the Higher Ed Reporter Alex Friedrich's tweet stream on 10/7/11:

Introducing Howard Bunsis, AAUP officer and prof in accounting at Eastern Michigan U #UMN

Bunsis: #UMN has third-highest in-state tuition among peers, but among lowest for out-of-state students.

Bunsis: #UMN retention numbers are already good -- and very hard to move

Bunsis: Magnitude of state cuts to #UMN -- not debilitating.

Bunsis: #UMN tuition needn't increase as it is. Cuts should be made to growing admin to control costs.

Bunsis: Disturbing that #UMN instruction part of budget went from 26% in 2006 to 23.2 % in 2010. That should never go down.

Bunsis: Many univ. support services that seem tied to instruction are actually admin. If #UMN differs, it needs to fully explain how.

Bunsis: Instructional salaries less than 20% of total #UMN budget.

Bunsis: #UMN has highest % admin spending among peers, but instruct. spending third to last.

Bunsis: Faculty salaries and benefits make up 8.9% of budget at #UM

Bensis: The #UMN attitude of OMG about the financial situation needs to "chill out."

Bunsis: Furloughs, pay cuts were more a political need than a financial one. #UMN needed to demonstrate to leg. that it's sharing the pain.

#UMN finance chief disagrees with Bunsis' use of numbers. Says he inflates admin costs by including those like advisers, libraries, etc.

Fin chief won't say whether he agrees or disagrees with Bunsis' statement that #UMN furloughs, pay cuts were political, not fin need.

The U has a big PR problem (again). Time to get into Morrill Hall and out of Dairy Queens? But I guess a man's gotta eat... Lunch at Big Ten?

No doubt more to come on the final report of Howard Bunsis when it becomes available.

$$$

2011-10-06T18:12:00.008-05:00

Going to Market

At the FCC meeting on September 19, 2011 the Provost explained that the market provides the rationale for differential tuition for the business school. The school will become more competitive by charging higher tuition.

The Provost does not explain how further enriching the professors and the administrators at the business school will make them better teachers or administrators. Are they not giving their best efforts to the students right now? Perhaps the administration hopes that more tuition will enable the business school to hire more "star professors" whose presence will elevate the ranking of the school. That strategy was tried (and failed) at the medical school. See Financial Peril at Medical School.

Moreover, what do rankings really tell us about the quality of teaching in the classroom? The administration acknowledges that the rankings of universities are "meaningless." See the conclusion to section (2) of University Inc. Part II. Does not the same conclusion apply to rankings of schools within the University?

Increasing tuition will make the business school more competitive for the business professors who can increase the gap between their compensation and the compensation of the professors in the liberal arts. For the students it simply makes an undergraduate degree in business more expensive.

The administration describes tuition as "the revenue stream with the highest potential for significant, long term growth." See the September 2009 Report of the Future Financial Resources Task Force (Strategy No. 2 on p. 5 of the Report) (emphasis added). This tone deaf declaration is an expression of an administration that is so far removed from the economic lives of the students and their parents that it is oblivious to the hardship that the current level of tuition imposes on them.

There are alternatives to endless increases in tuition. See Off Course in Higher Education.

Placing more value on a business education also will accelerate the trend of turning liberal arts education into vocational training. See Lowering Higher Education: The Rise of Corporate Universities and The Fall of Liberal Education (University of Toronto Press 2011) by sociology professors James Cote and Anton Allahar of the University of Western Ontario.

The acceleration into vocational training corresponds to the decline in public support for higher education. If higher education is nothing more than preparation for a career, then it makes sense for the public to demand that more and more of the costs for that training be shifted to the students who will benefit from the training. This approach turns higher education from a common good into a private enterprise. See University Inc.

Michael W. McNabb
Attorney at Law

This contribution comes from my good friend and fellow U of M alum, Mr. Michael McNabb. He has also paid a lot of tuition for his children at the U. Thank you Michael.

$$$

2011-10-05T14:36:00.002-05:00

My latest post on the Chronicle of Higher Education Brainstorm Blog.

When Professor Shechtman first made this discovery, it was met with much skepticism. It really was a jaw-dropping discovery that put him under intense pressure. Even Pauling did not agree with his interpretation and proposed alternative models for the diffraction patterns Shechtman first observed for quasi-crystals.

A wonderful story for denialists (climate, evolution...) and anti-scientists.

Mazel tov, Professor Shechtman.

+++

2011-10-01T16:58:00.003-05:00

Latest post on the Chronicle of Higher Education
Brainstorm Blog:

HPV Vaccination: More to It Than Soundbites

2011-08-21T09:47:00.002-05:00

University of Inefficiency?

Internal critics are calling out administrative bloat at various levels of the University of Minnesota.

The Minnesota Daily has an excellent piece from which this post title is taken.

There may also be found some enlightening comments from two faculty members.

Bill Gleason

This topic has been of long term interest on my blog, The Periodic Table. A subject that the Bruininks' administration consistently tried to blow off or ignore. But a serious problem that it will be necessary to face in the new Kaler administration.

For some background:

On Skyrocketing Administrative Costs at the University of Minnesota
Link: http://bit.ly/f5BdDf

On the cost of Administration at the University, Part II
Link: http://bit.ly/gMvSWj

University Inc.
Link: http://bit.ly/adAmY0

University Inc. Part II
Link: http://bit.ly/hXlCBy

Steen Erickson

Tell me of an organization of any size that doesn't have at least some waste or inefficiency and I'll tell you you're making it up. You simply can't build any organization staffed with human beings that won't have some problems - and Sviggum's list of "possibilities" for redundancy is utterly ignorant. When people like Sviggum focus on perceived or implied problems as evidence of some sort of a culture of waste or other sinister intent, I would ask them to hold up a mirror and let their own organizations, past and present, be examined for any sign of "impropriety." You'll find it if you aren't wearing your tea-party-lens glasses.

This is an excellent institution and I would argue that the majority of faculty and staff want it to succeed. The U contributes/creates intellectual capital to our society, providing opportunities for innovation and invention, and hopefully opportunities to improve our future. Can the same be said for many of the large corporations that many of Sviggum's allies would have us outsource to at the federal, state, or local level? (no, it can't - at least not if you're actually paying attention)

Support the University. Demand accountability, sure, but understand what we're here for and invest in our future. It's the future of our society. Maybe hire some folks who are perhaps a bit more effective at rebutting the critics? (a Frank Luntz for our side?)

Bill Gleason

You seem defensive, Steen, and blind to what has gone on here for the last ten years. As for hiring more folks who can rebut critics I point to people like Dan Wolter, Justin Paquette, and their army of spear carriers in the PR department.

Plenty of critics are both supporters of the U and not members of the Tea Party.

"I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Tea Party."

Bill Gleason
U of M faculty member and alum (Chemistry, 1973)

Steen Erickson

Not entirely defensive and blind, Bill, but perhaps more tolerant (OK, that's probably a pretty big stretch!). Not tolerant of waste, but recognizing that organizations are imperfect. Most things exist in living color, not black and white.

I do think the University needs better oversight, and I know from experience that effective oversight comes from effective managers. But the "administrative bloat" meme that has become popular among some folks is, I believe, nothing more than a catchy phrase that is easy for some to wrap their heads around even though it lacks substantive backing. A list of high paid "administrators" isn't proof of bloat. Functions and effectiveness need to be evaluated before "bloat" can be asserted.

I'm far too idealistic, I know, but I'd like to see a reasoned, fair evaluation of the areas of "bloat" to determine whether or not they actually add value, and particularly whether they add value that exceeds their cost.

Being that this is an institution of creative, intelligent people, do you think "we" have the capacity to do this evaluation? I won't hold my breath, but I am marginally hopeful...

Oh, and the tea party reference really alludes to the uninformed, catch-phrase driven folks who don't know enough to ask the meaningful questions.

Not entirely germaine to your post, but hopefully marginally clarifying.

Bill Gleason

Thanks, Steen.

I'm happy to talk specifics about administrative bloat. See for example my piece on the Periodic Table: “Cost Effectiveness is a Sometime Thing.” link: http://bit.ly/cdfSHN

I'll note that Dr. Roberta Sonnino, a close personal friend of a former med school dean, has now flown the coop at the U of M. This was announced, no doubt deliberately, on the Friday before July 4th weekend. She replaced an Associate Dean who was half-time. Dr. Sonnino's position was full time at a cost of ca $260,000. She went about busily trying to pump this position up to a full time job. See: The Latest Craziness in the Medical School - Or, Sunlight Is The Best Disinfectant link http://bit.ly/qMLkas

The current dean of the med school has announced that Dr. Sonnino's position will be filled at the half-time level. “Cost Effectiveness” also lists some other administrative fat. Mentioned there is one Dr. Henson, who has also hit the trail after much unhappiness by the faculty over her re-engineering the med school teaching function. The administration and the operation pushing homeopathy in the Academic Health Center/Medical School could also be easily disposed of. It is a waste of money. See my piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education: Why Would an Academic Health Center Support Homeopathy? link: http://bit.ly/ea9qNI See also the shamefully weak response by Dean Friedman and former Dean Cerra that doesn't even mention the word homeopathy. link: http://bit.ly/goqI79

Ka-ching!

The organizational structure of the Medical School with Dr. Aaron Friedman serving as both dean and VP of the AHC actually leads to further administrative bloat. Dr. Friedman obviously can't do both jobs himself so further levels of administration, particularly in the medical school, are necessary. Even though the medical school faculty voted overwhelmingly for a dedicated dean, this farcical and expensive administrative fiasco persists. See: Faculty Governance at the University of Minnesota is an Oxymoron, link: http://bit.ly/aCgOGi

Ka-ching!

A lot of this kind of stuff has gone on over the last ten years, Steen. Any administrator, short of the president, who needs a “chief of staff” has too many people working for them. And I won't even mention refugees being hired from the Pawlenty administration in hopes that they could pour oil on troubled waters.

Ka-ching!

One might also well ask why we needed a “cultural czar,” vp Rosenstone's position after he was booted upstairs from being CLA dean. Of course a czar needs a palace and a staff. It will be interesting to see if a new “cultural czar” is appointed, now that Rosenstone is busily turning MNSCU into a world class operation.

Ka-ching!

President Kaler has a lot of work to do. I trust he's up to the task.

We can be one of the best schools in the Big Ten, Steen. We have the students and faculty. If we just had a competent administration over the last ten or so years...

The legislature will buy into the U when we show that we have our act together.

My best,

Bill

2011-08-12T16:19:00.001-05:00

Twin City Federal Stadium - University of Minnesota

EXPENSIVE ICING

Judith Martin, a longtime geography professor and faculty leader at the U explains the plan [of President Bruininks] in this way: “The biggest way you can improve your rankings is to graduate students in four years and buy yourself a couple of Nobel-winning profs, right? Takes care of everything else. If your football team can win, that’s icing on the cake.”

See p. 3 in the July 2011 Minnesota Monthly report on The Man Who Slew The U (emphasis added).

The strategy of buying “star professors” did not work at the Medical School. See Financial Perils at Medical School.

And a big time athletics program is expensive icing.

In fiscal year 2009 the U of M ranked No. 20 in the nation in expenditures on athletics at $70.3 million. (The University of Southern California ranked No. 10 at $80.2 million.) See Table 1.1 on p. 18 of Big Time Sports in American Universities (Cambridge University Press 2011) by Duke University economics professor Charles Coltfelter.

The color of the financing is red:

Yet again, nearly every Division I athletics program spent more than it made last year. . . . The [NCAA] report, released Tuesday, presents a bleak financial picture of intercollegiate sports and reinforces critics’ charges that the current pattern of sports spending is unsustainable.

Only 14 programs [out of 120] from the Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly Division I-A) generated more revenues than expenses. This is down from 2006-07 and 2007-08 when 25 programs turned a profit. . . .

In a similar vein, the median institutional subsidy for athletics in the FBS rose from around $8 million in 2007-08 to more than $10 million in 2008-09. This reliance on institutional funds has increased as the growth in median revenue generated directly by athletics programs in the FBS—via sources such as ticket sales and media contracts—slowed to nearly 6 percent from 2008 to 2009. This is down significantly from the 17 percent growth in revenue from 2007 to 2008. By comparison, total athletics expenses sped in the other direction—ballooning by nearly 11 percent. This is double the growth in expenses from 2007 to 2008.

Up,Up and Away, the August 18, 2010 report in Inside Higher Ed (emphasis added). See also the 2010 report of the Knight Commission on Restoring the Balance: Dollars, Values, and the Future of College Sports.

The athletic department at the U of M continues to receive annual multi-million dollar subsidies from the general fund of the University (the Operations & Maintenance Fund). In fiscal year 2010 the subsidy was $8 million; in fiscal year 2011 the subsidy was $7.8 million. See pp. 77, 81 of the U of M budget. Meanwhile, the administration continues to cut courses and faculty positions and to replace professors with part-time instructors without tenure. See Section 1 of $tate of the University—A Parent’s Perspective.

Then there are the continuing direct and indirect costs for the construction of a $288.5 million football stadium that will be used for six games each year. See Section 5 of University Inc. Part II.

There is a solution that would enable the University to disentangle itself from the big business of the major revenue sports while allowing those programs to continue. The football and basketball teams should be organized as separate corporations. The University would grant a license to those corporations to use the University name for the teams. The license fee would be a percentage of the revenues generated from ticket sales, broadcasting rights, advertising, etc. The license fee income would be used to support the non-revenue sports that the University decides to retain, such as track and swimming. This is a solution that would enable the fans to continue to enjoy the games and would enable the University to focus on education, research, and public service—the reasons for its existence.

Michael W. McNabb

University of Minnesota B.A. 1971; J.D. 1974

University of Minnesota Alumni Association life member

2011-08-11T14:14:00.002-05:00

Westbrook Hall - Demolished Summer 2012

On the Mismanagement of Academic Facilities at

The University of Minnesota

My friend and fellow U of M alumnus, Mr. Michael McNabb writes:

Higher Education Preservation and Replacement funds are used to repair existing academic buildings. The administration asserts that since 2002 it has emphasized HEAPR bonds in its biennial Capital Request to the legislature in order to demonstrate its commitment to maintain existing academic facilities. The report includes a table to illustrate that the administration "tripled its average biennial HEAPR request and quadrupled its average award" between fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2009. See p. 22 of the June 2011report of the President on Financing The Future.

That is the most positive way to describe the situation. The table shows that since 2002 the administration has requested a cumulative total of $385 million in HEAPR bonds. The legislature has awarded $178 million, less than half the amount requested by the administration. Assume that the administration requested amounts that were in fact necessary to maintain the existing academic facilities. This would tend to indicate that at least part of the academic infrastructure is at risk of beginning to crumble. (The construction of a new football stadium and new academic facilities, such as the Biomedical Discovery District, may shift the spotlight away from the condition of existing buildings.)

The alternative explanation is the administration intentionally inflated the request for HEAPR bonds in an attempt to obtain a lesser amount that was actually necessary. Such a legislative strategy would have the potential, of course, to destroy the credibility of the University at the Capitol. See Resolution No. 1 in New Year's Resolutions for New President.

So which explanation is accurate? In May 2011 the Legislative Auditor announced that he will evaluate facilities management at the University. In his announcement the Auditor notes:

In 2010 the University requested $100 million in HEAPR funds and received $56 million. University officials state that there are far more maintenance and repair needs than there are funds available for maintenance work. . . .

The University's Facilities Management Division uses a Facilities Condition Assessment (FCA) to evaluate the conditions of all facilities and prioritize projects by needs. An analysis of University maintenance in 2010 found that the University had a much higher (and increasing) backlog of maintenance needs than peer institutions. . . .

OLA evaluations in 1988 and 1991 on routine maintenance on the Twin Cities campuses found that there was not effective planning for preventive maintenance.
See the May 2011 Notice from the Auditor (emphasis added).

Michael W. McNabb
Attorney at Law

2011-08-11T10:47:00.008-05:00

Professor Butt and the Self-Opening Napkin

Did Rube Goldberg Design

the University of Minnesota

Administration?

My friend and fellow U of M alum, Michael McNabb writes:

Note:

Rube Goldberg's cartoons became well known for depicting complex devices that performed simple tasks in indirect, convoluted ways. An example on the right is Goldberg's "Professor Butts and the Self-Operating Napkin", which was later reprinted in the postcard book, Rube Goldberg's Inventions!, compiled by Maynard Frank Wolfe from the Rube Goldberg Archives.

The "Self-Operating Napkin" is activated when the soup spoon (A) is raised to mouth, pulling string (B) and thereby jerking ladle (C) which throws cracker (D) past parrot (E). Parrot jumps after cracker and perch (F) tilts, upsetting seeds (G) into pail (H). Extra weight in pail pulls cord (I), which opens and lights automatic cigar lighter (J), setting off skyrocket (K) which causes sickle (L) to cut string (M) and allow pendulum with attached napkin to swing back and forth, thereby wiping chin.

In 1931, the Merriam–Webster dictionary adopted the word "Rube Goldberg" as an adjective defined as accomplishing something simple through complex means. Wikipedia

From the July 14, 2011 report of the Faculty Consultative Committee on the U of M administration:

It was clear that all of them [vice presidential units] are very complicated organizations.
page 1, paragraph 2 of the FCC report.

In addition, many of the vice presidential units have centers or programs or institutes that may or may not be especially closely related to the mission of the unit. . . . It appears to the SCFP that at least some of these organizational units continue without any review or any sunset provisions.
page 1, paragraph 3 of the FCC report.

There was discussion in SCFP about where administrators are, and it may be that there are more in the colleges than in central administration. But it would be a massive job to evaluate the administrative activities in each of the colleges.
page 2, paragraph 5 of the FCC report (emphasis added).

So the administration has grown willy-nilly over the years to the point where no one now understands the organization or even knows where all the administrators are! (Perhaps too big to understand is a corollary to too big to fail.)

Then consider the words of vice president and chief financial officer Richard Pfutzenreuter at the April 5, 2011 meeting of the Senate Committee on Finance & Planning:
Mr. Pfutzenreuter responded that his office is working on identifying what pays for research, education, public service, financial aid, and so on, based on the attribution of both direct and indirect costs, in order to determine the "fully loaded" costs of instruction and other mission activities.
page 2, final sentence of the April 5, 2011 report of the SCFP at http://conservancy(emphasis added).

So while building an incomprehensible organizational framework, no one has been keeping track of the flow of non-restricted funds.

Michael W. McNabb
Attorney at Law

2011-08-11T08:01:00.000-05:00

They came from Rochester...

Mayo Muscles in at the Mall of America

The body (patient) snatchers are slowly moving North. They've built an oncology center in Northfield, and are now at the Mall of America with options to build in the future.

And of course they might in the future simply buy one of the Twin Cities hospital chains. There are two ways to look at this. On the one had you could feel sorry for the local hospitals being squeezed by Mayo.

Or on the other hand you could say that ultimately it is for the good of the patients since Mayo is a superior operation.

A Mayo invasion is also partially the fault of greed and stupidity of the local hospitals, including Fairview/University of Minnesota. One need only look to the children's hospital situation for an example of greed, waste, and inefficiency.

See for example: Fairview Layoffs, Did new children's hospital at U of M have anything to do with this? and links therein.

From the Star-Tribune:

Mayo Opening High-Tech Outpost at Mall of America

The internationally known medical center based in Rochester gave reporters a peek at its "Create Your Mayo Clinic Health Experience" the day before its opening. The facility sports three-dimensional computer monitors, kiosks for the casual shopper and "navigator" specialists to help people assess their health and map out a wellness program.

"We consider this a lab as we try to decide what we want to offer in a permanent facility, if we do that," said Dr. David Hayes, medical director for the mall project.

The idea is to gather customer and patient opinion to guide development of a facility Mayo would like to build in the Phase II expansion of Mall of America, officials said.

Mayo has been creeping closer to the Twin Cities market in recent weeks. Last month, Mayo Clinic Health System, which has 70 medical facilities in the Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin, acquired the former Queen of Peace Hospital in New Prague. That Scott County hospital has three branch clinics in Belle Plaine, Le Sueur and Montgomery.

Also in July, Mayo opened a $10 million oncology treatment center in Northfield, near the campus of Northfield Hospital.

"We are not competing," said John La Forgia, Mayo's chief marketing officer and a project strategist. "We have something unique. This is about health and wellness, not the kind of service provided by a hospital. ... We are not developing a major new hospital."

But anyone stopping at the mall can easily connect with Mayo doctors and resources in Rochester, Hayes said. Mayo has a two-year lease on its first-floor space and on a more traditional office nearby.

Standing by a computer monitor in one of the three traditional exam rooms, Hayes explained the Rochester connection. By using video technology, doctors in Rochester can get the pulse or blood pressure of a patient in the mall medical office. The doctors can see video of a skin lesion or other symptoms and diagnose conditions with some assistance from a medical worker at the mall office, he said.

La Forgia declined to put a price tag on the mall project cost or what kinds of revenue its expects to generate there. Patients would typically pay for mall services out of pocket, he said.

Mayo has a letter of intent with the Mall of America giving the clinic first choice of a space in the upcoming mall expansion, he added.

"We would like to do it, but there is no commitment that we will definitely do it," he said.

Mayo has retained the Campbell Mithun advertising agency to publicize its new venture, La Forgia said. Mayo is also the only provider allowed to offer health fairs or any other health-related activity at the mall for two years, Hayes said.

"This is a global destination," La Forgia said of the mall. "We think of ourselves globally."

"We talk to people at the mall and at other malls and ask, 'What would you want?'" Hayes said. "This is a lab to find out what will work in this space [and] to keep Mayo relevant and give people more information about their health and wellness using high quality materials."

2011-08-10T11:18:00.002-05:00

It's an old song...

Administrative Bloat at the University of Minnesota

This topic has been of long term interest here at the Periodic Table. A subject that the Bruininks' administration consistently tried to blow off or ignore. But a serious problem that it will be necessary to face in the new Kaler administration.

For background:

On Skyrocketing Administrative Costs at the University of Minnesota

On the cost of Administration at the University, Part II

University Inc.

University Inc. Part II

From the Minnesota Daily:

University of Inefficiency?

There are too many administrators and they’re overpaid, he says. Messing, a University employee for 30 years, has an extreme view on an issue that’s heating up as the school finds itself in a budget crisis.

A Minnesota Daily analysis of the Twin Cities campus salaries shows 51 top administrators, from assistant vice presidents to the president, were paid more than $10 million in the 2010 fiscal year — an average of about $200,000 per administrator

In the past, the state Legislature has brought up questions of administrative efficiency. But it was the presidential transition, from Bob Bruininks to Eric Kaler, that triggered a review of the central administration now, said University Senate Committee on Finance and Planning member Terry Roe.

The committee’s basic conclusion: “There appears to be considerable duplication of functions within the University,” according to a report draft obtained by the Daily.

In the draft of the SCFP report, committee chairman Russell Luepker wrote that many units within the University have their own public relations staff, as does the central administration.

The report also points out the volume of “centers, institutes and programs” within units, and that “some may continue to play vital roles but others do not.”

Luepker prefaced the report by saying it doesn’t focus on individual units because each has its own mission and activities. “Nonetheless, there are generalizations that can be made and should be considered,” he writes.

Professor Eva von Dassow visited the SCFP in 2010 to express frustration with the University’s spending.

In requesting an audit of the administration, von Dassow said it would “establish a new norm in faculty-administration relations” in the time leading to the presidential transition, according to meeting minutes.

Regent Steve Sviggum, who had served as the Republican Speaker of the House in the state Legislature before joining the Board of Regents, said government is top-heavy, but higher education is worse.

Throughout private and public industry, productivity has increased along with efficiency, Sviggum said. And while the University has been producing more with more students, its efficiency has lagged.

Sviggum requested University employment numbers after becoming a regent in February. Those figures showed a 50 percent increase in professional and administrative staff over the past decade, he said.

“Does every school need its own communications staff?” he asked. “Does every school need its own fundraising staff? Does every school need its own … human resources staff?”

Sviggum said fellow regents Laura Brod and Dean Johnson have brought up similar concerns.

“When you start looking at aggregate, the number and the salaries, and then the assistants and the legislative assistants, you have to start shaking your head a little bit,” Sviggum said.

Messing said the result of the SCFP’s review should include both trimming salaries of overpaid administrators and axing unnecessary positions. He said the “bloated” administration can impact students in far-reaching ways, like tuition hikes.

“You lower the tuition and you get more scholarship money and there are many ways of doing this, at least starting to do this,” he said. “Cut the administration by 50 or 60 percent. Give the money you save to students.”

“From my perspective, the administrator making $250,000 a year is worth far less than the man who cleans the toilets. One does an honest job..."

Kaler said he’s sure there are ways to make the University more efficient but recognizes the importance of some administration.

“We have a $3.7 billion budget, so managing that effectively means that you’re going to have some administration.”

Luepker said in an email that he expects the SCFP report to be finished in the next month.

2011-08-01T13:25:00.000-05:00

Does the Medical School at the University of Minnesota

Have no Shame?

Although I apologize to gentle readers for putting this trash up, there is no other way that I can properly express my disgust for the University of Minnesota and its Medical School's acceptance of money from a porn purveyor.

Please see my post on the Chronicle of Higher Education Brainstorm Blog:

Adam and Eve Help Out at the University of Minnesota

When asked about hardcore porn – something that’s believed to distort a person’s view of sexuality, Eli Coleman, director of the university program on human sexuality replied:

“If this was a company that was into child pornography or something like that, that was illegal, I don’t think we could morally accept something from people who are involved in illegal activities. But this is a company that’s responsible and is law-abiding…”

It is a sad day at a university when the ethical standard is: “If it is not illegal, we can do it.”

$tate of the U - A Parent's Perspective

2011-07-30T17:25:00.030-05:00

___

This post is available in pdf format.

To view pdf. (Opens in Google Documents)

To download, select "file" option at top left.

My friend and fellow alum, Michael McNabb writes another important guest post that is well worth reading by parents of prospective University of Minnesota students. His prior essays on our university have been major contributions to framing the debate on the crucial question: What do we want for our University?

President Bruininks gives the perspective of the administration on the state of the University in his correspondence of June 14 to Regent Steve Sviggum. Here is the perspective of a parent of four children who have received their undergraduate or professional degrees (or both) from the University since 2004.

(1) The President acknowledges that during the past 10 years the budget of the University has increased by $1 billion. Yet the administration is cutting courses and faculty positions. See Three Minutes at http://ptable.blogspot.com/2010/06/three-minutes-of-input-at-university-of.html#links. And the administration plans to continue the elimination of academic programs and the replacement of professors with part-time instructors without tenure. See Recommendation No. 4 (Narrow the Scope) at pp. 8, 33-34 of the June 2011 report of the President on Financing The Future at http://blog.lib.umn.edu/pres/news/June2011_TtU_CostProductivity_FINAL.pdf.

During the same period the administration has displayed no mercy toward the students and their parents as it raised tuition at dizzying rates. See Stop Using Students as ATMs at http://ptable.blogspot.com/2010/10/stop-using-students-as-atms-university.html#links. The administration increased tuition so substantially that it more than offset the reduction in state appropriations. Hundreds of millions of dollars of tuition flowing into the coffers each year together with hundreds of millions of dollars in state appropriations enabled the administration to increase its budget by $1 billion. (In the current fiscal year the administration will rake in $808.3 million in tuition. See the President's Operating Budget at p. 26 of the June 20, 2011 report of the Board of Regents at http://www1.umn.edu/regents/docket/2011/june/board620.pdf. )

The administration plans to continue using students and their parents as ATMs with endless reservoirs of money. A recent report declares that "tuition is the revenue stream with the highest potential for significant, long term growth" and asks "what should tuition pay for when tuition revenue exceeds the cost of instruction." See the link to the 2009 Report of the Future Financial Resources Task Force in On The Hidden Cost of Research at http://ptable.blogspot.com/2010/12/on-hidden-cost-of-research-michael.html#links; see also Recommendation No. 2 (Grow Tuition Revenue) at pp. 7, 51-52 of Financing The Future.

This double whammy inflicted by the administration means that students and their parents now pay much more while the scope of the education available is reduced and the actual teaching of students is increasingly assigned to part-time instructors (or, cheaper yet for the University, to on-line instruction).

"The real issue is increasing the value that we the university bring to the state of Minnesota, to its stakeholders and to our students. Increasing that value, communicating it and demonstrating it will be the major goal of my presidency."

President Eric Kaler in the July 7, 2011 issue of the Pioneer Press at http://www.twincities.com/ci_18423950 (emphasis added).

(2) The President claims:

Net Price for Twin Cities undergraduates has increased an average of 3.4% per year over 10 years.

See p. 59 of his report on Financing the Future (emphasis added). Let us examine the calculation of Net Price:

The cumulative percentage increase per student, 2001-2010, in Cost of Attendance, grant/gift aid, and Net Price were quite different from the increase in tuition sticker price, Dr. Radcliffe explained. The cost of attendance increased by 50% during these ten years; the Net Price increased only 34%. The primary reason that the Net Price is increasing more slowly than the Cost of Attendance is because of significant increases in the size of the mean grant/gift award. The Net Price, he said, is tuition minus financial aid. His focus is on the net price; while the sticker price is relevant for some students, it is not for most.

See p. 5 of the June 7, 2011 report of the Senate Committee on Finance & Planning (emphasis added).

The administration includes student loans in its definition of "total financial aid." See the definition under the heading "Improvements in Financial Support" on p. 12 of the report of the Provost entitled Achieving Excellence at http://www.academic.umn.edu/provost/reports/documents/Achieving_Excellence_2005-10.pdf

So the calculation of Net Price by the administration does not reflect the economic reality facing the students (and their parents). It subtracts (disregards) the amount of the student loans that the students and parents will be paying off for years to come.

See the response of the Minnesota Daily at Cynical & Deceptive at http://ptable.blogspot.com/2011/03/minnesota-daily-nails-university-of.html#links.

See also Student Debt at http://ptable.blogspot.com/2009/10/college-of-liberal-arts-dean-vision-of.html#links

(3) The President claims that there will be 74 senior administrators at the end of the 2010-2011 academic year. He defines senior administrators as the president, vice presidents, provosts,chancellors, deans and a few others. See p. 5 of his letter and note 6 in Financing The Future.

The Pioneer Press has a web site for Minnesota Public Salaries. There is a link to the site in On The Cost of Administration at http://ptable.blogspot.com/2011/03/on-cost-of-administration-at-university.html#links. The web site lists 9 provosts, 18 chancellors, 40 vice presidents, and 112 deans. The site identifies the persons who hold those senior positions. The number claimed by the administration is not even close to being accurate. There are scores of administrators who receive hundreds of thousands in dollars in compensation each year.

In his letter the President does not discuss the compensation of the senior administrators. At the legislature he defends the compensation as within market range for such positions. This is the same justification used to pay tens of millions of dollars in annual bonuses to Wall Street executives. The President and the Regents may have an unwavering confidence that the market always makes the correct determination in economic matters. Alan Greenspan did when he was chair of the Federal Reserve, as did the "Masters of the Universe" who were the chief executive officers of the Wall Street firms. Their misplaced confidence combined with greed to bring our national economy to the brink of chaos.

The law restricts the pursuit of personal wealth by the leaders of a tax-exempt organization (such as a non-profit institution of higher education). Among other measures, the Internal Revenue Code imposes an excise tax on excessive compensation paid to senior executives. See the Postscript below. Is the annual compensation of hundreds of thousands of dollars to scores of senior administrators at the U of M reasonable when students must incur tens of thousands of dollars in debt that will take years to repay in order to support that level of compensation?

Conclusion

Our system of higher education has contracted a malady that plagues our health care system. The cost of health care in the United States is much higher than it is in any other country (whether measured as per capita spending or as a percent of GDP). A major reason for this high cost is that our for-profit health insurance companies have by far the highest administrative costs in the world. See T.R. Reid, The Healing of America pp. 34-43, 229 (New York: Penguin Press 2009).

Each year hundreds of billions of dollars flow through each system. The issue is not a lack of funds. The issue is the allocation of those vast sums of money. See University Inc. Part II at http://ptable.blogspot.com/2011/02/draft-as-university-transforms-itself.html#links .

Postscript

The law restricts the pursuit of personal wealth by the leaders of a tax-exempt organization (such as a non-profit institution of higher education):

No part of [a tax-exempt] organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of an insider. An insider is a person who has a personal or private interest in the activities of the organization such as an officer, director or key employee. This means that an organization is prohibited from allowing its income or assets to accrue to insiders. An example of prohibited inurement would include payment of unreasonable compensation to an insider. Any amount of inurement may be grounds for loss of tax-exempt status .
See pp. 2-3 of the IRS Compliance Guide for 501(c)(3) Public Charities (Publication 4221-PC) at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p4221pc.pdf (emphasis added).

Section 4958 of the Internal Revenue Code also provides for an intermediate sanction that may be imposed on executives of tax-exempt organizations who receive excessive compensation:

Congressional hearings in 1993 produced several outrageous instances of excessive compensation. Though the existing federal law could penalize an organization by removing recognition of its tax exempt status, the IRS rarely, if ever, imposed such a penalty, for the removal of exemption was like hanging someone for stealing a loaf of bread. It was too draconian for the wrong, and it hurt the organization rather than the individual who engaged in the private inurement. In response to this problem, Congress adopted the approach of the private foundation rules, imposing a graduated excise tax on "excess benefit transactions" involving 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations other than private foundations, a so-called intermediate sanction that replaced the ultimate penalty of revocation of tax exemption.

Fishman, Wrong Way Corrigan and Recent Developments in the Non-Profit Landscape, 76 Fordham L. Rev. 567, 585 (2007) at http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol76/iss2/3. (Click on download in the right hand column.)

In 2005-2006 the IRS conducted a compliance check on executive compensation in tax exempt organizations. Although high compensation was usually determined to be appropriate, the IRS did assess $21 million in excise taxes against 40 executives in 25 organizations on the basis of excessive compensation. See p. 1 of the March 2007 IRS Report on Exempt Organizations Executive Compensation Compliance Project at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/exec._comp._final.pdf.

In October 2008 the IRS commenced a compliance check on tax-exempt colleges and universities. Executive compensation was a major area of inquiry. The IRS requested information on the compensation of the six highest paid officers, directors, trustees, and key employees (ODTKEs). The IRS survey included 91 large universities. The average compensation of the highest paid ODTKE at large universities was $428,000 while the median compensation was $361,000. See Figure 65 on p. 55 of the May 2010 IRS Interim Report on Tax-Exempt Colleges and Universities Compliance Project at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/cucp_interimrpt_052010.pdf.

Over the past several years the compensation of President Bruininks was an annual salary of $455,000 plus an annual contribution of $150,000 to his retirement account. The compensation of President Kaler will be an annual salary of $610,000 plus an annual contribution of $50,000 to his retirement account starting in his second year.

Michael W. McNabb
University of Minnesota B.A. 1971; J.D. 1974
University of Minnesota Alumni Association life member

___

2011-07-30T16:08:00.000-05:00

University Enterprise Laboratories (UEL)

Declared Dead by MedCity News

The fiasco that is University Enterprise Labortories has been discussed before on this blog. For background, please see: University Enerprise Laboratories - A Wild Success or a Failure?

Finally time to stick a fork in it?

From MedCity News:

Minnesota ‘biotech incubator’ UEL has failed. It’s time to admit it

During the past six years, UEL has portrayed itself as a biotech incubator helping the University of Minnesota’s technology transfer efforts. But, for the most part, the university has been propping up what is a textbook case of how not to start an incubator.

UEL picked too big of a space in the wrong kind of building. It carried large debt from inception. And when the university didn’t create enough startups, UEL gave space to anyone in order to stay afloat. What’s more, UEL never tracked key metrics, like job creation, from startups that did flourish under its care.

It failed from the start

UEL started in 2004 with $13.8 million in debt and an expectation that companies created from University of Minnesota’s technology would rent much of its 126,000 square feet.

But the university didn’t produce enough startups. So there were few renters and little revenue. In fact, in 2008, as UEL’s very survival became a question, it laid off its general manager and an administrative employee. It saved itself by renting to whatever company would take space.

“We were left scrambling to fill this building in one way or another so as to service the debt that we were up against,” said Anthony Carideo, UEL’s chairman.

Now, many of UEL’s roughly 30 tenants have nothing to do with biotech or life sciences.

It’s on welfare

... cash on hand ($378,806 as of December 2010) would be wiped out if the university enforced a requirement for UEL to pay a fine if it did not provide space to school startups. The university has waived that every year since 2006 — the first year the payment was due.

The cumulative tab to date? $500,000.

“At a time when that whole operation was just getting off to a start, it would have been I think (unfair) for us to say we hold you responsible for the fact that we didn’t spin out enough companies to locate there,” said Tim Mulcahy, vice president of research at the University of Minnesota.

Over the years, the university and its foundation provided $3.75 million to UEL, with the foundation also extending a $750,000 line of credit, Carideo said.

It didn’t do the math

George also said the success of an incubator shouldn’t be defined by operational cash flow. That’s because the goal of the incubator is to provide subsidized facilities and services to startups — not in generating profit.

Instead, success should be defined by the number of jobs the incubator has helped to create, George said.

UEL has had four graduates — Segetis, Twin Star Medical, Harland Medical Systems and OrthoCor Medical — but it has never tracked jobs it helped create.

University support is inconsistent

Last year, the school’s Medical Devices Center was teaming up with UEL to create what would be tentatively known as the Medical Devices Center Launch Pad. The space would house early stage companies created through a fellowship program at the Medical Devices Center.

But the head of the university’s technology commercialization office apparently shot the idea down. “It was an innovative, collaborative idea developed by good-hearted folks, implemented in start-up speed, without buy-in from U of Minnesota leadership,” stated Marie Johnson, the former director of the Medical Devices Center’s Innovation Fellows program.

In the future, could it become a biotech incubator? Yes. If it manages to lower its rent, kick out some tenants and bring in someone with tech transfer expertise to run it. But Carideo did not seem particularly open to the idea of throwing tenants out even though Mulcahy, a supporter of UEL, said that having an exit strategy for tenants is important for any incubator.

In the end it was Mulcahy who best captured the essence of UEL.

“UEL was a great experiment in public-private partnership,” he said. “I think it has fulfilled some of its promise. I think it’s a different entity than it had been originally intended to be.”

2011-07-30T09:23:00.000-05:00

The University of Minnesota's

Public Relations Deception

From the Minnesota Daily:

In a letter [2] published in today’s Minnesota Daily (7/27/11), Provost Tom Sullivan writes that total financial aid has increased from $81 million in 2004 to $152 million in 2010. At first glance, this seems like a large improvement, increasing by 87.6 percent over 6 years. But while this statistic is technically true, it is intentionally deceptive.

Over this same period of time, tuition has risen [3] 48 percent (by 69 percent if one starts counting from the 03-04 school year, but at least 48 percent). Furthermore, the size of the undergraduate student body has [4] grown [5] 6 percent during this period of time and inflation has gone up [6] between 15 (beginning of 2010) and 19 percent (end of 2010). These three factors account for a large portion, if not all, of the increase in the total dollar amount of financial aid. The lack of context in Sullivan’s letter gives readers a false impression.

The Daily Editorial Board has criticized [7] the University administration for using these factually true but misrepresentative figures before. The nature of public relations communications is spin, misrepresentation, and lying by omission, especially when the facts don’t fit one’s desired narrative, but we expect a better, more honest discussion from our University leaders. Kaler is still in a transitional period in his administration, but this is an unequivocal instance of a problem of the Bruininks regime persisting under new leadership.

Kaler and the rest of his administration must stamp out the use of these deceptive statistics wherever they find it. Because the rosy hue they see emanating from the University is actually just the tint of their glasses.

--Eric Murphy

2011-07-05T10:30:00.000-05:00

Unethical Behavior at the University of Minnesota?

By Carlson School Students?

Is this Surprising?

For background on the ethically challenged attitude of one of the Carlson School faculty please see: Greed is Good.

"It's one thing if you're bringing in a criminal to speak. But if someone's under investigation, that's fair game," he [Parente] said.

Stephen Parente, director of the Medical Industry Leadership Institute in the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota

From the Star-Tribune

A Missouri start-up is accusing students in a University of Minnesota class of copying its idea for a business. The university has said some of the students' behavior was not acceptable and that their lesson will help future students.

Last year, a Missouri start-up received calls from University of Minnesota business students who asked for help on a class project.

The business owners were happy to help. They provided sales and marketing data. They spent time on the phone telling the students about their product, a device that lets people open bathroom doors with their foot.

Then, a couple of months later, they discovered that the students had created a rival company with a similar product.

"To do it the way they did it, it's just not right to be taught that in school," said Ron Ely, a co-founder of the company, StepNpull. "That's almost plagiarism, and they got the whole school backing up the knowledge and marketing."

Enter Arndt, Toepener's CEO. He was a student in the U's Entrepreneurship in Action class, which began in September. The class challenges undergraduate students to create companies.

Arndt, a self-proclaimed germaphobe, says he came up with the idea for Toepener independently last fall, but didn't provide a specific date. StepNpull's records show he purchased one of its products on Sept. 27.

Around that time, the students contacted the company.

"You have a great product on your hands," Arndt e-mailed StepNpull in October. Arndt then asked if he could do work for StepNpull in the future.

On Dec. 7, student Mike Wesely e-mailed StepNpull. Wesely said his parents remodeled their bar's restrooms and he had "stumbled" across their product. He wondered whether StepNpull was compliant with federal disabilities regulations. StepNpull sent over more information. Wesely didn't disclose he was part of Arndt's team.

On Dec. 28, the students incorporated their business, Forge LLC.

Kirk O. Hanson, executive director at Santa Clara University's Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, said he thinks the U should give any money it gets from Toepener back to StepNpull because it's "tainted."

"If I were in the university's shoes, I would hesitate before [promoting] this firm as an example."

John Stavig, who teaches the Entrepreneurship in Action class, is the guarantor of Toepener's $15,000 loan. He is also the professional director of the U's Gary S. Holmes Center for Entrepreneurship, which is the lead sponsor for the Minnesota Cup's student division. Stavig facilitates the judging for that division.

Since the division began in 2006, all five student winners have been connected to the Carlson School.

"We're trying to help students move forward with their businesses. Do they always make the right decisions? No," Stavig said. "Should we crucify a couple of entrepreneurs trying to build a business? That seems foolish to me."

Disgusting. Maybe the Carlson School should go private...

2011-07-02T16:47:00.001-05:00

Is College Worth It?

Answer May Depend on Accurate Net-Price Estimate

Latest post on Brainstorm blog at the Chronicle of Higher Education

$$$

2011-07-01T12:18:00.000-05:00

Gov. Mark Dayton's shutdown announcement

By Gov. Mark Dayton

Remarks of Governor Mark Dayton — As prepared for delivery
Thursday, June 30, 2011

I deeply regret that the last week of intense negotiations between the Republican legislative leaders and Senator Bakk, Representative Thissen, and myself have failed to bridge the divide between us.

Our major difference remains the same. It is the difference between my balanced approach of significant spending cuts combined with income tax increases only on the very wealthiest Minnesotans, versus the Republicans’ “all-cuts” budget.

In recent days, I proposed to reduce state spending by an additional $1.6 billion. It brought my total amount of spending cuts to over $1.9 billion. Those cuts reduced my proposed budget to $35.7 billion, slightly lower than the $35.8 billion I offered as a half-way compromise six weeks ago.

Republicans have offered only to forego their $200 million tax cut and add that amount of spending. While welcomed, $200 million is only a small step toward resolving a $5 billion deficit.

Unfortunately, despite many hours of intense negotiations, the Republican legislative caucuses remain adamantly opposed to any additional tax revenue. Therefore, a $1.4 billion gap remains between our last respective offers.

For the past six months, I have proposed that remaining gap be resolved by raising taxes on only the wealthiest 2% of all Minnesotans. Republicans have adamantly opposed it. Today, Representative Thissen, Senator Bakk, and I made two proposals which contained revenues to be raised by increasing taxes only on people who make more than $1 million per year. The Department of Revenue reports that there are only 7,700 of them, less than 0.3% of all Minnesota tax filers.

The Republicans rejected those two proposals, as they have every proposal that involves raising tax revenues from any source whatsoever. Instead, they would prefer to protect the richest handful of Minnesotans at the expense of everyone else, even at the expense of a state government shutdown. As one Republican legislators told a member of my staff, “We’re friends with some of those guys.”

Instead of taxing their friends, they would prefer very damaging cuts to health care, K-12 and higher education, state and local public safety, mass transit, and other essential services.

The “billion dollar revenue increase” they now claim to have offered consisted principally of two big loans. The first was from our schools; borrowing $700 million by delaying school aid payments. The second was borrowing from future tobacco settlement payments. This does not add revenue, it adds debt. And it’s what got us into this budget mess in the first place.

It is significant that this shutdown will begin on the 4th of July weekend. On that date, we celebrate our independence. It also reminds us that there are causes and principles worth struggling for – worth even suffering temporary hardships to achieve.

Our American Revolution was very much about fair and just taxes, where the middle-class was over-taxed while the very rich went tax-free. In the absence of fair taxes, the basic services people relied upon for their health and well-being were denied them.

I cannot accept a Minnesota where people with disabilities lose part of the time they are cared for by personal care attendants, so that millionaires do not have to pay one dollar more in taxes.

I cannot accept a Minnesota where young people cannot afford the rising tuitions at the University of Minnesota or a MnSCU campus, so that millionaires do not have to pay one dollar more in taxes.

I cannot accept a Minnesota where elderly widows are denied the at-home services that permit them to remain healthy and able to live in their own homes, or a Minnesota where local governments have to further slash their firefighters and police forces, or a Minnesota where special education is being cut, so that millionaires do not have to pay one dollar more in taxes.

That is not Minnesota. That is not why the people of Minnesota elected me their Governor: so that millionaires could continue to avoid paying their fair share of taxes for the benefit of everyone else in our state. Some of them are my friends, too. However, unlike the Republican legislator, I believe in putting the people of Minnesota first.

We are One Minnesota. Our state’s greatness has been forged by generations of people who also worked hard for their money, yet willingly paid their fair share of taxes so that our entire state could prosper. It was once called “the Minnesota Miracle.”

It wasn’t a “miracle,” however. They earned it. They spent to achieve it by building excellent schools, colleges, and universities; good roads, highways, and public transit; and an exceptional quality of life helped by collaborations between the private and public sectors throughout Minnesota.

Now, all of that is at risk. All of it is being underfunded while, at the same time, middle-income Minnesotans are being over-taxed. Will the Republicans insist that inequality continue, so that millionaires do not have to pay one dollar more in taxes?

So far they have. It will take the people of Minnesota to persuade them otherwise.
I will continue—tonight, tomorrow, and however long it takes—to find a fair and balance compromise. I welcome Republicans to join with me – my door is always open. I believe the people of Minnesota are with me. I ask them to join me in standing up for our State’s future.

---

2011-06-29T11:38:00.001-05:00

A Journal Shows Its Spine Against Industry-Sponsored

Spine Research

My latest post on Chronicle of Higher Education Brainstorm Blog

$$$

2011-06-26T16:24:00.010-05:00

Third Greatest Public Research University in the World?

President Bruininks: Never Mind!

My friend, Michael McNabb writes:

Amid the financial ups and downs, the U's 15th president set his sights high: to make the school one of the world's top three public research universities within a decade.

It hasn't attained that status, and Bruininks says he's not sure it will, but he says his goal was not really about putting the U in the top three.

He said he wanted to start a conversation and make progress toward excellence on a variety of educational, research and public-outreach goals - particularly in comparison to peer institutions - which he says the U has done.

"The movement of these measures really tell an incredible story," he said.

St. Paul Pioneer Press June 26, 2011 at http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_18355767# (emphasis added)

The University's Plan, Performance and Accountability Report, now in its ninth year, is a broad, governance-level discussion of theU of M's fulfillment of its mission and its success toward its aspiration of becoming a top-three public research university in the world. . . .

While university rankings are often a topic of great interest to the general public and influential in changing or, in most cases, reinforcing perception, these rankings have several limitations which make them inappropriate for strategic planning and monitoring progress. Two of the most significant limitations are first, that the rankings are not guided by any empirical and theoretical framework to justify the selection of measures and methodology employed, and second, that the rankings adjust methodologies annually, making year-to-year analysis difficult and meaningless.

See the introduction to the September 2010 University Plan, Performance and Accountability Report at pp. 42, 45 of the October 8, 2011 report of the Board of Regents at http://www1.umn.edu/regents/docket/2010/october/board.pdf. (emphasis added) Presented by President Bruininks and Provost Sullivan.

Gilda Radner (as Litella) peered through her reading glasses and, in the character's trademark high-pitched, warbly voice, read a prepared statement in opposition to an editorial that the TV station had supposedly broadcast. These sketches were, in part, a parody of the Fairness Doctrine, which at the time required broadcasters in the United States to present opposing viewpoints on public issues. Litella became increasingly agitated as her statement progressed. Midway in her commentary, it became apparent that she had misheard and/or misunderstood the subject of the editorial to which she was responding. A typical example:

“ What is all this fuss I hear about the Supreme Court decision on a "deaf" penalty? It's terrible! Deaf people have enough problems as it is! ”
The news anchor interrupted Litella to point out her error, along the lines, "That's death, Ms. Litella, not deaf ... death." Litella would wrinkle her nose, say something like, "Oh, that's very different...." then meekly turn to the camera and say, "Never mind."

See Emily Litella at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Litella.

See also the conclusion to Section 2 of University Inc. Part II at http://ptable.blogspot.com/2011/02/draft-as-university-transforms-itself.html#links.

Michael W. McNabb

Attorney at Law

$$$

2011-06-26T09:28:00.000-05:00

Ex-Minnesota Golf Director Harris:

Brenny defamed me

From St. Paul Pioneer Press:

I have been defamed unfairly, I believe, by Ms. Brenny and her law firm for financial gain and as part of an effort to obtain publicity for themselves.

John Harris said Saturday he did not resign as University of Minnesota golf director because former assistant coach Kathryn Brenny is suing him for sexual discrimination but rather to refocus on his Champions Tour playing career and business interests.

Brenny is suing him in Hennepin County for $200,000, with discrimination and nepotism at the heart of her complaint. The trial is scheduled to begin Dec. 12,

"I leave my position as director of golf based upon my decision - and mine alone - that, at this point in time, it is better for the University of Minnesota, my family and the players in the program going forward that another head coach build upon some of the positive momentum which has been created," he said.

Maturi recruited Harris for the job last summer over the objections of critics within the Gophers golf community who were concerned about his commitment to the program and whether the athletics director was more star struck by Harris' fundraising capabilities as a longtime professional golfer.

Documents filed in the lawsuit reveal a bitter fight that threatens to further taint the Gophers' athletics department.

Last year, a Hennepin County jury ordered the university to pay $1 million in damages to Jimmy Williams, who sued the athletics department claiming men's basketball coach Tubby Smith misrepresented an assistant coaching job offer. The university is appealing that verdict.

And now this tempest continues to roil the usually sedate realm of the golf program.

Brenny, the 1998 Minnesota State High School champion from Little Falls, Minn., claims Harris was motivated to push her aside to allow his son-in-law Ernie Rose to perform her assistant coaching duties. She said Harris circumvented university hiring practices by creating a position for Rose, who had no college degree.

Brenny, 30, played at Wake Forest before winning the 2007 Minnesota State Amateur championship. She was an instructor in North Carolina in August when she received a phone call from Harris encouraging her to apply for the assistant head coach's job in Minnesota. She assumed she would teach and mentor the entire 10-woman roster.

Instead, according to her complaint, Brenny was allowed to work only with the freshmen, was prohibited from talking about golf with upperclassmen and spent the majority of her time running early-morning conditioning drills and doing paperwork.

Harris and the university deny Brenny's allegations and have pushed back, accusing her in court records of suing Harris to exploit his status as a professional golfer who has earned more than $3 million on the Champions Tour since 2002.

Mark has said Harris learned Brenny was gay shortly after she was hired and immediately tried to freeze her out of the program. He excluded her from men's and women's team events and did not invite her to a dinner at Harris' house while Rose and men's coach John Carlson were allowed to attend.

The university maintains it had the right under Brenny's employment contract to change her job description. Brenny claims the university defrauded her by making her perform duties that conflicted with the job she was offered.

The university denies the sexual-discrimination claim and wants Judge William Howard to dismiss the lawsuit.

Harris chose to hire his own attorney even though the university pledged to defend him in the lawsuit, according to a Jan. 26 letter by university President Robert Bruininks.

The letter included a caveat.

"The decision is made based upon the university's determination that, at all times and in all matters relevant to the complaint, you were acting within the course and scope of your university employment," Bruininks wrote Harris.

"Should at any time our understanding of the facts related to this case change, the university reserves the right to reconsider and alter our determination regarding your coverage under this policy."

2011-06-25T10:03:00.000-05:00

John Harris, University of Minnesota Golf Coach,

Leaves after less than one year...

From the Star-Tribune:

John Harris, whose one season as director of Gophers golf programs included success on the links and trouble off, resigned Friday after less than a year on the job.

Harris signed a multiyear contract last July 30 and will not receive a buyout, according to Garry Bowman, university director of sports information.

Harris, one of the state's top amateur golfers, is the central figure in an ongoing lawsuit against the university. The suit was filed by Kathryn Brenny, hired by Harris as associate women's golf coach last August.

The complaint says that on Sept. 12 Harris told Brenny she would not be traveling with the team and was given duties such as typing schedules. Brenny was told by athletic director Joel Maturi to "quit or comply" with Harris' decisions, according to the complaint.

Brenny originally agreed to a severance package, then rejected it, the complaint states, after hearing that an athletic department employee told at least one player that "Harris discovered she was a homosexual and did not want her on the road with the team.''

The suit alleges the university and Harris violated her rights as a member of a protected class under the state Human Rights Act. University general counsel Mark Rotenberg has said that the school does not agree with Brenny's claims and did not discriminate against her on the basis of sexual orientation.