Monday, December 13, 2010

The University of Minnesota is in

"good financial health" according

to Chief Financial Officer Pfutzenreuter

Yes, you read that right...

The University of Minnesota ranked among the top 10 research schools in the country for the first time in its history, based on year-end data presented Friday.
Bigger is better?

While the school moved up two places since 2005, it’s still struggling to reach its goal of being a top three research institution
 Maybe not?

“If you’re going to rate a university on its research enterprise, this is the single number most would rely on,” Mulcahy said.
 So, uh, we're better than Harvard, better than Caltech, better than any institution that does not garner as much research funding?  Doesn't size have anything to do with this?  

“I used to think the goal of being [among] the top three research universities was only an aspiration,” Regent Linda Cohen  said. “But after this report I’m beginning to think perhaps this could be a reality.”
 Breathtaking lack of understanding about what a top research university is...

The end of the federal stimulus program — which netted the University $208 million over two years — and shifts in federal funding could threaten future research growth, Mulcahy said.

“To be honest with you, I’m concerned,” he said. “The future does not look bright for research at the national level.”

Bingo!  And remember the old saying: The bigger they are the harder they fall. 

The University is in “good financial health” and things are beginning to turn around after the recession, Chief Financial Officer Richard Pfutzenreuter  said Friday during an annual finance review.
“It’s been a tough couple of years with the economy,” Pfutzenreuter told the Board of Regents. “[But] the University, I think, is certainly on the repair.”

Sure Pfutz, whatever you say.  About those layoffs?  About those salary freezes?  About those tuition increases?  About a trip to Boynton for a reality check?

The University’s expenses remained essentially the same as the previous year, something Controller Mike Volna  attributed to an “extraordinary effort” to cut costs and budget more efficiently.

How about EFS Mr. Volna?  Is this model of efficiency saving us money?  How much money was spent on this fiasco?  And how much more will be required to make it work?

Pfutz and the provost
dazzle Regents...


1 comment:

Michael W. McNabb said...

The complete lack of awareness of the cost of research in the evaluation by Linda Cohen is a sad commentary on the failure of the Regents to discharge their duty of oversight. The Regents do not discharge that duty by simply receiving the selective reports delivered to them by the administration. The Regents have an affirmative duty to keep themselves informed by their own research and by review of the reports of the faculty committees. They can start by reviewing the March 22, 2010 report of the Senate Research Committee included in On The Hidden Cost of Research at