an institutional priority.
FACULTY
No
Good points:1. Focusing on Hispanic studentsMajor issues:1. An over-reliance on growth at a time when when clearly the University has cost issues. 2. Trying to increase market share when traditional students are decreasing is very hard and attempts to do this will likely exacerbate the cost problem. 3. Lack of a branding strategy at the University and department levels. 4. An inability to say no to anyone. We add students who increase costs beyond what they bring in revenue(e.g., students who need more support, athletic tuition waivers). We only look at the revenue they bring in, not the costs they incur. We add programs looking only at the potential students they bring in, not the costs, so leadership says yes to everyone. The lesson of midtier businesses in a shrinking market is those that specialize thrive. Those that try to accommodate everyone fail. Their costs increase beyond their ability to generate revenue which drags down the entire organization. Focus, prune, and survive. (1) It's rather peculiar that this document gives a definition of shared governance that is not compatible with the one in the Faculty Code. There is no mention here of faculty's role in shared governance. (2) What is faculty's role in this plan? Oh, see (1). (3) It appears that most of the faculty who were on these committees came from one department. Shouldn't we get a diversity of viewpoints from a variety of departments? (4) What exactly counts as a "term"? Is it a quarter?
FACULTY
No
FINAL DRAFT 2/11/2019 Page 49
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online