ADVERTISEMENT

Brad Carson TW Column

Carson has already achieved A LOT (that most people, including some on this board, didn’t think was remotely possible) in a short amount of time. I have been truly impressed with his leadership and his ability to right the wrongs of the previous administration.

Im sure there will be some negative Nancys that just have to nitpick at some little things, but overall the university seems to be heading in the right direction.
 
Carson has already achieved A LOT (that most people, including some on this board, didn’t think was remotely possible) in a short amount of time. I have been truly impressed with his leadership and his ability to right the wrongs of the previous administration.

Im sure there will be some negative Nancys that just have to nitpick at some little things, but overall the university seems to be heading in the right direction.
Yeah, he said abracadabra and poof...

dammitt Janet and her deeds just about disappeared.
 
@chito_and_leon has brought up some of these concepts before but with less optimism (you can tell me if that us a fair take T).

I like Carson's reasoning and enthusiasm.

Carson column on TU's vital role
I mentioned when Brad was hired that he was one of the smartest people I've met and that if anybody could transform TU, it would be him, so nothing surprises me. If it's possible to turn TU into a high quality research institution (I personally think it is possible fwiw), it'll be Brad who does it. My worry is that he'll Bill Self us and move on after a few big wins.

I personally think his vision for Tulsa is not realistic. Having a vibrant TU will make a difference but it's not going to be transformative. Places with high rates of college grads tend to have a pretty predictable set of cultural, social and political characteristics and that's not Tulsa. TU alone can't change that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TulsaGrad07
Yeah, he said abracadabra and poof...

dammitt Janet and her deeds just about disappeared.
I still have whiplash from the Janet to Brad thing. How do you go all in for 3 years on turning TU into a technical school, tear the place down academically brick by brick, and then one day decide to go back to what it was? "Oh, yeah, never mind." It's New Coke for universities. Whoever's running the show should seriously be tested for schizophrenia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gmoney4WW
I still have whiplash from the Janet to Brad thing. How do you go all in for 3 years on turning TU into a technical school, tear the place down academically brick by brick, and then one day decide to go back to what it was? "Oh, yeah, never mind." It's New Coke for universities. Whoever's running the show should seriously be tested for schizophrenia.
I wonder what Professor Howland thinks about the general direction of the University under Brad Carson. Other than taking apart his program, I wonder if he still has a negative view of the overall direction. I haven't seen anything positive or negative coming out of him since Carson took over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chito_and_leon
I wonder what Professor Howland thinks about the general direction of the University under Brad Carson. Other than taking apart his program, I wonder if he still has a negative view of the overall direction. I haven't seen anything positive or negative coming out of him since Carson took over.
The idealist in me says we should think Howland for his graciousness in not taking the well-deserved victory lap. The realist in me says we should thank a good NDA/confidentiality provision in his separation agreements for his, um, "discretion". But I have no information at all, just guessing based on other things I have seen in my life.

It's too bad we can't uncrack that egg. Seemed to be a favorite spot for smart kids who were on the longer path for graduate degrees, law school, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gmoney4WW
I mentioned when Brad was hired that he was one of the smartest people I've met and that if anybody could transform TU, it would be him, so nothing surprises me. If it's possible to turn TU into a high quality research institution (I personally think it is possible fwiw), it'll be Brad who does it. My worry is that he'll Bill Self us and move on after a few big wins.

I personally think his vision for Tulsa is not realistic. Having a vibrant TU will make a difference but it's not going to be transformative. Places with high rates of college grads tend to have a pretty predictable set of cultural, social and political characteristics and that's not Tulsa. TU alone can't change that.
I thought you would come in about where you came in on this.

I personally love the boldness and provocative approach including his vision for Tulsa. It seems like a 20 to 30 year endeavor though barring a couple of game changing, transformational ideas turning into a magnet for employment. Still it is great.
 
I mentioned when Brad was hired that he was one of the smartest people I've met and that if anybody could transform TU, it would be him, so nothing surprises me. If it's possible to turn TU into a high quality research institution (I personally think it is possible fwiw), it'll be Brad who does it. My worry is that he'll Bill Self us and move on after a few big wins.

I personally think his vision for Tulsa is not realistic. Having a vibrant TU will make a difference but it's not going to be transformative. Places with high rates of college grads tend to have a pretty predictable set of cultural, social and political characteristics and that's not Tulsa. TU alone can't change that.
I think the political climate in the state, the misogyny and racism coming out of OKC, the war on public education the legislature seems hell bent on, plus the lure of higher wages in other places make leaving an easy thing for grads...and unfortunately, that's not something TU can change in this state. One other thing that seems to be a drawback is the inconvenience of travelling anywhere from Tulsa. There are few places you can fly direct to. Even flying to StL is getting harder. This is a drawback vs Dallas or Kansas City.

Tulsa has a ton of great things about it, some are just not obvious or overt...you've got to find them.
 
On the other hand, Tulsa is the Austin of Oklahoma in many ways, other than being a state capital and being loaded with tons of tech firms of course. And a Tesla plant that is burning money according to its CEO.
 
Could someone provide me with Brad's e-mail? I've tried in vain for 2 years to get someone in the TU school of business to call me back so I can establish a pipeline into interviewing and hiring MIS / cybersecurity grads fresh out of the undergrad / grad school. Seems nobody gives a crap in the administrative level, so maybe the president could leverage his agency if I send an e-mail to him directly.
 
I think the political climate in the state, the misogyny and racism coming out of OKC, the war on public education the legislature seems hell bent on, plus the lure of higher wages in other places make leaving an easy thing for grads...and unfortunately, that's not something TU can change in this state. One other thing that seems to be a drawback is the inconvenience of travelling anywhere from Tulsa. There are few places you can fly direct to. Even flying to StL is getting harder. This is a drawback vs Dallas or Kansas City.

Tulsa has a ton of great things about it, some are just not obvious or overt...you've got to find them.
Not sure about misogyny / racism, never experienced or witnessed that personally in the 16 years I lived in Tulsa, but I can say the state income tax, limited commuter airport and "old boys" mentality (where a select clique of wealthy elitists control the mayor and the city's growth) hurt the chances of keeping graduates locally. Tulsa's a nice, affordable, friendly place to live. I tried in vain for 3 months to get a job locally after graduating with my MBA from TU before looking out-of-state. I wouldn't move back at this point until they get rid of the state income tax, but that will likely never be abrogated.
 
I thought you would come in about where you came in on this.

I personally love the boldness and provocative approach including his vision for Tulsa. It seems like a 20 to 30 year endeavor though barring a couple of game changing, transformational ideas turning into a magnet for employment. Still it is great.
Fortunately, Tulsa needs TU more than TU needs Tulsa, Brad can remake TU even if he has limited ability to change Tulsa.

I agree that he's effective at articulating the vision of a modern Tulsa. But I'm not sure how much Brad's vision of Tulsa aligns with the voters' vision, especially as education has become increasingly politicized. Do 50%+1 of Tulsa voters even support his basic premise that having more college grads is a good thing?

I think it can be very threatening, not only do college educated people tend to have different values and views than others, but it means that non-college educated people will increasingly be left behind. Not that there aren't wealth disparities in Tulsa, but it's nothing like other places. If you have a larger group of college grads and better jobs for them, their wages will increase much faster than non-college educated people. At a macro level, that's good for the city and state, but people who feel left behind don't vote based on macro goals And the state is particularly bad at supporting the left behind, so that's a group that likely will be very alienated and threatened by Brad's vision.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TU_BLA
Fortunately, Tulsa needs TU more than TU needs Tulsa, Brad can remake TU even if he has limited ability to change Tulsa.

I agree that he's effective at articulating the vision of a modern Tulsa. But I'm not sure how much Brad's vision of Tulsa aligns with the voters' vision, especially as education has become increasingly politicized. Do 50%+1 of Tulsa voters even support his basic premise that having more college grads is a good thing?

I think it can be very threatening, not only do college educated people tend to have different values and views than others, but it means that non-college educated people will increasingly be left behind. Not that there aren't wealth disparities in Tulsa, but it's nothing like other places. If you have a larger group of college grads and better jobs for them, their wages will increase much faster than non-college educated people. At a macro level, that's good for the city and state, but people who feel left behind don't vote based on macro goals And the state is particularly bad at supporting the left behind, so that's a group that likely will be very alienated and threatened by Brad's vision.
Yes but I live here and love his vision. Those of us who agree simply need to advocate. Otherwise failure is baked in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Li'l Eric Coley
Could someone provide me with Brad's e-mail? I've tried in vain for 2 years to get someone in the TU school of business to call me back so I can establish a pipeline into interviewing and hiring MIS / cybersecurity grads fresh out of the undergrad / grad school. Seems nobody gives a crap in the administrative level, so maybe the president could leverage his agency if I send an e-mail to him directly.
kathy-taylor@utulsa.edu

If she doesn’t respond to you within a business day, reply back here and I’ll help facilitate other people on campus contacting you who will be responsive to your inquiry. Give her the chance to resolve any issues in her area before you elevate your concerns. You would want to be treated the same way.
 
Last edited:
I thought you would come in about where you came in on this.

I personally love the boldness and provocative approach including his vision for Tulsa. It seems like a 20 to 30 year endeavor though barring a couple of game changing, transformational ideas turning into a magnet for employment. Still it is great.
Until Oklahoma retires it’s personal income tax, reforms it’s corporate taxation scheme and resolves several transportation hurdles, no amount of education, liberal lifestyle adjustments, or other incentives is going to entice business to Oklahoma. There is nothing remarkable about Oklahoma’s location outside the mineral industry. The workforce is undereducated and now has access to arguably the nation’s most liberal drug laws. So there are far more competitive alternatives in the region. Go into a corporate board room or government conference room and try to argue moving to Tulsa. You’ll get laughed out of the room. Oklahoma’s economy is a case study in self-strangulation. And its been that way since statehood, certainly since it was 75/25 split in favor of the ruling Democrats.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TulsaRulzOSUdrools
Until Oklahoma retires it’s personal income tax, reforms it’s corporate taxation scheme and resolves several transportation hurdles, no amount of education, liberal lifestyle adjustments, or other incentives is going to entice business to Oklahoma. There is nothing remarkable about Oklahoma’s location or workforce and there are far more competitive alternatives in the region. Go into a corporate board room or government conference room and try to argue moving to Tulsa. You’ll get laughed out of the room. Oklahoma’s economy is a case study in self-strangulation.
I think that is his point. That we need to continue developing reasons and that TU can be a part of it.

Otherwise why not just roll over and die? I for one am here 100% by choice. I could work from anywhere. Love the quality of life provided in Tulsa and greatly prefer it to my brief periods living in the Atlanta and Chicago areas.
 
Last edited:
I think that is his point. That we need to continue developing reasons that that TU can be a part of it.

Otherwise why not just roll over and die? I for one am here 100% by choice. I could work from anywhere. Love the quality of life provided in Tulsa and greatly prefer it to my brief periods living in the Atlanta and Chicago areas.
He says the glass is half full and we should try to add more local water, which could lead to water from other sources.

Everyone else outside the State of Oklahoma that has ever spent more than half an hour exploring moving a business there or applying for federal grants to be implemented there or talked to a kid in Alabama with two job offers who wants 20% more in wages than a comparable offer in Dallas, can tell you that Oklahoma by design has a half glass full of stagnant water and needs to pour that half into a full glass and start filling it with purified water from a different source.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TU 1978
He says the glass is half full and we should try to add more local water, which could lead to water from other sources.

Everyone else outside the State of Oklahoma that has ever spent more than half an hour exploring moving a business there or applying for federal grants to be implemented there or talked to a kid in Alabama with two job offers who wants 20% more in wages than a comparable offer in Dallas, can tell you that Oklahoma by design has a half glass full of stagnant water and needs to pour that half into a full glass and start filling it with purified water from a different source.
Sounds like TU needs to invest in a quality entrepreneurship center. If you can't get companies to move to Tulsa, then get people who are already there to build businesses.

I don't think "get companies to move here" is all that good anyway. You'd mainly get support roles, which are higher paying than Home Depot clerk but middle of the food chain. In technology at least, I'm not aware of any prominent market built by bringing companies in (India, but that's different). They started with homegrown companies and companies coming in followed. I think that's probably true for economically strong cities generally. Are there any economically vibrant cities built off of moving companies in? I'm not sure but can't think of any.

Entrepreneurship is also something TU can do alone without getting the Instragam and Twitter stars in the state legislature on board. Even better, with support from the city and some $$ like Kaiser.

One thing OK has going for it is it's one of 3 states that do not allow non-competes, which is really important for entrepreneurship. At least that's what I heard on an MCLE last week. Tho I guess it's probably not good for moving companies in, so enjoy your lack of non-competes while you can.
 
kathy-taylor@utulsa.edu

If she doesn’t respond to you within a business day, reply back here and I’ll help facilitate other people on campus contacting you who will be responsive to your inquiry. Give her the chance to resolve any issues in her area before you elevate your concerns. You would want to be treated the same way.
Thanks Huffy. I'll give it a shot!
 
Until Oklahoma retires it’s personal income tax, reforms it’s corporate taxation scheme and resolves several transportation hurdles, no amount of education, liberal lifestyle adjustments, or other incentives is going to entice business to Oklahoma.

This!! Perfectly and succinctly stated.
 
Until Oklahoma retires it’s personal income tax, reforms it’s corporate taxation scheme and resolves several transportation hurdles, no amount of education, liberal lifestyle adjustments, or other incentives is going to entice business to Oklahoma. There is nothing remarkable about Oklahoma’s location outside the mineral industry. The workforce is undereducated and now has access to arguably the nation’s most liberal drug laws. So there are far more competitive alternatives in the region. Go into a corporate board room or government conference room and try to argue moving to Tulsa. You’ll get laughed out of the room. Oklahoma’s economy is a case study in self-strangulation. And its been that way since statehood, certainly since it was 75/25 split in favor of the ruling Democrats.
FWIW, most technology hubs are in places that have a personal income tax, that really is not a factor in being a tech hub. Maybe that's important if the goal is to get established tech companies to move their HR and accounting and IT functions here if that ho hum outcome is your goal, but being a real tech hub means building from the ground up, which is why tech hubs are overwhelmingly driven by the ability to generate talent, not economic things like taxes.
 
FWIW, most technology hubs are in places that have a personal income tax, that really is not a factor in being a tech hub. Maybe that's important if the goal is to get established tech companies to move their HR and accounting and IT functions here if that ho hum outcome is your goal, but being a real tech hub means building from the ground up, which is why tech hubs are overwhelmingly driven by the ability to generate talent, not economic things like taxes.
You mean hold talent. A collection of similar and often competing firms that congregate in a low cost environment with access to trained talent, who hire away from each other and end up supporting an overall economy. Boise, Austin, very soon Columbus, the list goes on. It’s Chicken and Egg. The workers are the eggs. You don’t get them without chickens. The chickens are looking for the cheapest coop and the most cost effective way to gather and lay eggs.

The generational brain drain out of Oklahoma due to its disastrous tax and education policies has lasted 40 years and the state may never recover. It never ceases to amaze me when I come back and hear community leaders complain about cities like Flint, Michigan not diversifying their economies. I’m like, look around whydontcha.

At this point, you can argue that Oklahoma can’t and shouldn’t try to replicate the cultivation of Austin’s rich labor pool. It will take a new and innovative way to reach the destination like Austin that Carson wants to reach. One that goes beyond low taxes, tort reform, non-union labor, comparatively cheap housing, winking drug laws, recreational opportunity and plentiful and reliable air transport as incentives to entice industry and talent alike. Maybe that’s what he has in mind. He should start with lowering taxes and doing something about not having a labor force half of which couldn’t qualify for employment in other states either due to lack of skills or a piss test.
 
Last edited:
You mean hold talent. A collection of similar and often competing firms that congregate in a low cost environment with access to trained talent, who hire away from each other and end up supporting an overall economy. Boise, Austin, very soon Columbus, the list goes on. It’s Chicken and Egg. The workers are the eggs. You don’t get them without chickens. The chickens are looking for the cheapest coop and the most cost effective way to gather and lay eggs.

The generational brain drain out of Oklahoma due to its disastrous tax and education policies has lasted 40 years and the state may never recover. It never ceases to amaze me when I come back and hear community leaders complain about cities like Flint, Michigan not diversifying their economies. I’m like, look around whydontcha.

At this point, you can argue that Oklahoma can’t and shouldn’t try to replicate the cultivation of Austin’s rich labor pool. It will take a new and innovative way to reach the destination like Austin that Carson wants to reach. One that goes beyond low taxes, tort reform, non-union labor, comparatively cheap housing, winking drug laws, recreational opportunity and plentiful and reliable air transport as incentives to entice industry and talent alike. Maybe that’s what he has in mind. He should start with lowering taxes and doing something about not having a labor force half of which couldn’t qualify for employment in other states either due to lack of skills or a piss test.
You don't create a tech environment by bringing in tech companies, it comes by having people start tech companies that grow and then build an ecosystem around them. That is what happened in all major tech hubs, including Austin. You need talent to start companies that grow, and they add other talent from the area. Taxes have nothing to do with it, that's why most of the tech hubs are in states with personal income taxes and generally high overall rates. The embryo is having something to attract talent who will create companies and having an ecosystem to support them as they grow. There are a lot of challenges for Tulsa/Oklahoma to create tech businesses but taxes isn't one of them (education on the other hand is #1, #2 and #3 on the list...). The problems you describe probably keep Tulsa from diversifying but not so much on tech.

The main exception is India, where big companies went for cheap labor, which built a tech labor pool that now is one of the most vibrant tech economies in the world. That seems to be the model you push, but that's completely unrealistic. The problem is Tulsa is not cheap - I tried this once and engineering talent in Tulsa is pretty expensive.

The biggest problem I've heard is that people in Tulsa work on "Tulsa time". You can't build a tech company unless you work a lot and very hard and you need other people who do that. The tech people I've dealt with in Tulsa are "we'll get it when we get it" and that just doesn't work.
 
You mean hold talent. A collection of similar and often competing firms that congregate in a low cost environment with access to trained talent, who hire away from each other and end up supporting an overall economy. Boise, Austin, very soon Columbus, the list goes on. It’s Chicken and Egg. The workers are the eggs. You don’t get them without chickens. The chickens are looking for the cheapest coop and the most cost effective way to gather and lay eggs.

The generational brain drain out of Oklahoma due to its disastrous tax and education policies has lasted 40 years and the state may never recover. It never ceases to amaze me when I come back and hear community leaders complain about cities like Flint, Michigan not diversifying their economies. I’m like, look around whydontcha.

At this point, you can argue that Oklahoma can’t and shouldn’t try to replicate the cultivation of Austin’s rich labor pool. It will take a new and innovative way to reach the destination like Austin that Carson wants to reach. One that goes beyond low taxes, tort reform, non-union labor, comparatively cheap housing, winking drug laws, recreational opportunity and plentiful and reliable air transport as incentives to entice industry and talent alike. Maybe that’s what he has in mind. He should start with lowering taxes and doing something about not having a labor force half of which couldn’t qualify for employment in other states either due to lack of skills or a piss test.
How can Brad Carson lower taxes?

Sounds like he is trying to establish a place where people can cultivate a rich intellectual life and he envisions that as TUs contribution. It makes sense to me.
 
How can Brad Carson lower taxes?

Sounds like he is trying to establish a place where people can cultivate a rich intellectual life and he envisions that as TUs contribution. It makes sense to me.
This is a great point. If you want people who graduate from TU to stay, make it a great place to live. That matters a lot more to most people than taxes anyway. I think we just see the tip of the iceberg for what Brad has in mind but you point out something that I'm sure is part of what he's thinking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JesseTU
Imagine arguing that Oklahoma's personal income tax was keeping tech companies away when 13 of the top 20 tech companies by market cap are based in the state with the highest personal income tax. And 2 more are in #2 and #3. Unless you're appealing to a very specific Elon Musk type, it doesn't even land on the radar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chito_and_leon
Imagine arguing that Oklahoma's personal income tax was keeping tech companies away when 13 of the top 20 tech companies by market cap are based in the state with the highest personal income tax. And 2 more are in #2 and #3. Unless you're appealing to a very specific Elon Musk type, it doesn't even land on the radar.
There are 5 main cities for VC financing and all are located in some of the highest tax states - CA, NY and MA. The biggest city in a non-tax state is basically mouse nuts - Seattle got about $8.1b of VC investment in 2021 compared to LA, the smallest of the big boys, with $23.9b. If you look at what actually matters for cities to get VC financing, it's educational opportunities by far the most important.

The problem is you have people thinking "what would make me want to move here" without realizing that people like them are not the answer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ctt8410
Good news on the TU financial front.

University finally restored 403b matching on July 1st which is crucial for faculty retention.

Freshman enrollment up 15+ percent.

Fall admissions close to 800 including transfers.
 
Good news on the TU financial front.

University finally restored 403b matching on July 1st which is crucial for faculty retention.

Freshman enrollment up 15+ percent.

Fall admissions close to 800 including transfers.
Get that class up to a 1000 over the next couple of five years, and we're good. Maybe take it up to 1250 in the next 8 or 10 years, and I think we're where we need to be to maintain the small size, but compete on the education level and in sports.(support, funding, and quality can be maintained and improved at 1000-1250.) We'll have to build a few more teaching buildings over the next 10 years, and hire some additional staff to maintain class size.

I think we've got the space and the ability to expand to that size.(Take the campus border to at least Columbia, and maybe Atlanta.) Keeping our enrollment around 6500-7250(undergrad & grad) is a good and meetable goal. Then we'll be more equitable to Rice on campus size/enrollment.

That's where I want the expansion to stop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TU83 and drboobay
Get that class up to a 1000 over the next couple of five years, and we're good. Maybe take it up to 1250 in the next 8 or 10 years, and I think we're where we need to be to maintain the small size, but compete on the education level and in sports.(support, funding, and quality can be maintained and improved at 1000-1250.) We'll have to build a few more teaching buildings over the next 10 years, and hire some additional staff to maintain class size.

I think we've got the space and the ability to expand to that size.(Take the campus border to at least Columbia, and maybe Atlanta.) Keeping our enrollment around 6500-7250(undergrad & grad) is a good and meetable goal. Then we'll be more equitable to Rice on campus size/enrollment.

That's where I want the expansion to stop.
The 403b thing is huge and a crucial step.
 
The 403b thing is huge and a crucial step.
That was the main part of my like of your comment. The other things are good, but that as you say, is huge. That means the campus has a better chance to grow larger in the next few years without unintentionally losing many faculty, and bringing in new and improved faculty.

You can't improve the class size when the professorial quality is steadily deteriorating. Without that, the quality would hasten exponentially towards the worse. Patience with that situation was probably getting rather thin.
 
That was the main part of my like of your comment. The other things are good, but that as you say, is huge. That means the campus has a better chance to grow larger in the next few years without unintentionally losing many faculty, and bringing in new and improved faculty.

You can't improve the class size when the professorial quality is steadily deteriorating. Without that, the quality would hasten exponentially towards the worse. Patience with that situation was probably getting rather thin.
There is reason to be optimistic. But the retirement matching is less than our peers and aspired peers, as is our base pay. We have a state income tax, as well as corporate taxes on any faculty consulting side gig, book deal, etc. It’s more lucrative for young faculty to still go elsewhere. Luckily many of them are not focused solely on that. You can bet it’s not lost on the business school applicants. We can do better and should.
 
There is reason to be optimistic. But the retirement matching is less than our peers and aspired peers, as is our base pay. We have a state income tax, as well as corporate taxes on any faculty consulting side gig, book deal, etc. It’s more lucrative for young faculty to still go elsewhere. Luckily many of them are not focused solely on that. You can bet it’s not lost on the business school applicants. We can do better and should.
I definitely wasn't suggesting that restoring the match solved everything.

But I know a current faculty member who was questioning Carson's sincerity considering how long he had been around now, and that there was still no retirement match. This was a few months ago. I could sympathize with his perspective - that the rhetoric was great but that employees were not feeling the improvement reflected in the rhetoric.

I'm guessing this is some type of virtuous cycle, where continued improvements in which and how many students we admit and how well we connect with alumni gives us more funds which gives us more flexibility in investing in a variety of priorities including employee compensation. At some point you need to prove it to employees though, so it was an important step.
 
I definitely wasn't suggesting that restoring the match solved everything.

But I know a current faculty member who was questioning Carson's sincerity considering how long he had been around now, and that there was still no retirement match. This was a few months ago. I could sympathize with his perspective - that the rhetoric was great but that employees were not feeling the improvement reflected in the rhetoric.

I'm guessing this is some type of virtuous cycle, where continued improvements in which and how many students we admit and how well we connect with alumni gives us more funds which gives us more flexibility in investing in a variety of priorities including employee compensation. At some point you need to prove it to employees though, so it was an important step.
I can’t speak for the man but he’s run businesses and a massive federal bureaucracy. I don’t think there’s anyone who understands more how difficult it is to reacquire intellectual capital once you lose it. So it’s not like he was doing risk balancing and saying I won’t restore the pension until I absolutely have to. You can’t spend money until it’s in the bank or at least on the books. Once it was there, he brought back the pension immediately.
 
It's funny, some of the same people who were saying a year ago that TU needed to become a glorified technical college because we don't have enough money to afford all those fancy professors now are saying that TU really needs to dump more money on the faculty faster. Our experts have determined that we either need to spend a lot less or a lot more, and fast. All they seem sure about is that whatever we're spending at any particular time is not right. They should be management consultants.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drboobay
Get that class up to a 1000 over the next couple of five years, and we're good. Maybe take it up to 1250 in the next 8 or 10 years, and I think we're where we need to be to maintain the small size, but compete on the education level and in sports.(support, funding, and quality can be maintained and improved at 1000-1250.) We'll have to build a few more teaching buildings over the next 10 years, and hire some additional staff to maintain class size.

I think we've got the space and the ability to expand to that size.(Take the campus border to at least Columbia, and maybe Atlanta.) Keeping our enrollment around 6500-7250(undergrad & grad) is a good and meetable goal. Then we'll be more equitable to Rice on campus size/enrollment.

That's where I want the expansion to stop.
Looking forward to University of Tulsa, Stillwater Campus. Take the fight to the enemy!
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT