Memphis is a Public university with 22,000 students.
The comparison of TU with Memphis is a laughable example at best.
How much coverage does Tulane get in New Orleans? Rice in Houston?
Gragg going to Arky as AD?
- Thread starter Tuloma
- Start date
Memphis is a Public university with 22,000 students.
The comparison of TU with Memphis is a laughable example at best.
How much coverage does Tulane get in New Orleans? Rice in Houston?
Fair point... I just picked Memphis since I knew the metro area was about the same as Tulsa.
The New Orleans paper is mostly pro sports in the sports section... 75% saints and pelicans, 20% LSU, and about 5% other.
How many D1 schools does Houston have in it? 2 playing FBS. Tulsa has 1...
Bad example. Houston public school with 42,000 students in a metro area almost 2x the size of the state of Oklahoma.
It was more the point of why Rice doesn't get as much coverage. Even in Memphis and New Orleans, UM and Tulane are also competing for column space against a pro NBA franchise in each, and New Orleans also has the Saints. There is nothing IN TULSA to compete with TU for space right now. No NBA or any other sports franchises, the Drillers and Roughnecks are both out of season. I don't care if you spend 10 columns on what went wrong with football this year and then spend some space on how basketball can improve. The fact that in season TU would barely get 1/2 page for a game preview while OU and OSU were getting nearly 2 pages is ridiculous.
15000 fans in a 700000 person metropolitan area...
We have done little on our own to grow our fan base. We have actually done more to isolate ourselves.
It doesn’t pay to be perceived as elitist.
People do not relate to TU because we keep trying to tell everyone how great we are and most people cannot afford the University. If we would increase the student body and lower tuition, it would help. God forbid some professor takes offense. We are not an "elite" school like we say. And really, who cares?
Just about 99% of our alumni and present student body care.
Is red dirt a 1%er or just not an alumni?
Last edited:
Everyone knows the Tulsa Tribune was better and the only time we had to put up with the World was on Sunday.
I think there’s a happy medium in there somewhere.... nothing has to be all one way or another. TU can keep its academic reputation without seeming elitist, it’ll just take some work by the university to make that happen... I think they’re trying. I also know that they want at least a 20% enrollment increase. It’s definitely important to recruit from all over the country (which seems to be the basket TU is putting all its eggs in with all the new admissions counselors), but it would be nice to have a home grown focus...
Further I really wish TU would reach out to tcc to form some sort of partnership that would all their students to have access to tickets for sporting events, since our students seem to not give a shat. I know it’s kind of a weird concept, but I wonder if TU has ever considered taking over tcc... similar to what the university of Arkansas does with their system. Obviously there’s a lot that would go into that and it may not even be remotely possible, but it’s just a thought.
I like the idea of reaching out to TCC's student activities group to provide some cheap tickets to TU sporting events. I wish they'd do the same with ORU students at least for football.I think they'd have a surprising response.
As for taking over TCC...that's a dicey and very complicated issue. TCC is run by the OK State Board of Regents as a public community college. UofA can do it easier in Arkansas because they are both public institutions who are run by the state. The business of running public institutions is extremely political as well. If you haven't sat in on a state board of regents meeting, I encourage you to do so...and be glad that TU doesn't have to answer to some of that crap.
And the global recruiting is a big initiative everywhere. It's an important component in the US News rankings indirectly because it is a measure of "national reputation". And Red Dirt, the US News rankings is not measuring academic programs per se. They put a lot of emphasis on things like % of applicants accepted, % of accepted applicants enrolled, % of alumni giving, and "national reputation" (which is a pretty arbitrary and subjective measure). As with any school, TU has certain academic and facility strengths that put it much higher than most of its peer institutions.
Oh I’m sure you’re right, it was just a thought... an easy way to increase the alumni base, solve some financial issues, and have a better reach throughout the community.
TU is never going to be a 30k school in need of an 80k stadium, but it just feels like with the metro population we have and the level of competition we are a part of, realistically putting 30-40k folks in the stadium from the Tulsa metro area 5-6 times per year shouldn’t be as much of a struggle as it is. It seems that one of the keys (outside winning most of your games) is having a large, local alumni population... something that’s dwindling quickly as many older TU alums are dying off. I feel safe saying that most of new TU grads don’t stay in Tulsa... so there’s going to be an even bigger issue in the future if this alumni situation doesn’t get worked out or if TU doesn’t find a way to embed itself in the community.
I do not want to lose this "standing" I just want us to go back to admitting all kinds of students. National merits are great for research but the average kid stays in Tulsa and follows sports. You can admit different levels without losing this "reputation"
We should start a new thread to talk about how great Gragg is at his job. Perhaps Houston boosters will see it!!
Positive point #1: he didn’t pee in the bushes at Utica square.
Not sure after that...
About 11% of the students are Chinese. We need to get them involved in football and basketball. Our AD doesn’t seem to have promotions that encourage them to attend games. Unfortunately most of them don’t stay to live in Tulsa but go back home taking their finances with them.
The TU Association of International Students had an initiative to get the foreign born students to TU athletic events this year. They focused on soccer, tennis and basketball because most of the students could relate to those sports. Also most of those sports have International students on the roster.
Hopefully next year they can add football to the mix. Maybe the coaching staff could do a football 101 for them.
Hopefully next year they can add football to the mix. Maybe the coaching staff could do a football 101 for them.
I care. Oklahoma as OU, Oklahoma State, Rogers, State, NSU, Central Oklahoma, Langston, SEO State, Pandhandle State, OSU Tulsa, OU Schusterman, Northwestern State, and on and on and on. It doesn't need another good school. It needs a great school.
You can say Tulsa isn't that school. But it strives to be. In the rankings, it is the closest thing Oklahoma has and one struggles to see a University ahead of Tulsa that is lackluster. Sure, there are some large public schools - but they are flagship schools. They are either not the schools the "also rans" can get admitted to or their rankings are based on an immense amount of resources supporting research or particular programs that are among the best in the world.
A smaller school cannot sustain either of those model and growing TU to 25K+ isn't likely. While many of our programs are great we have yet to elevate a large enough program to world class status to support the University ranking on its own. Hence, Tulsa must anchor its ranking in quality students and selective admissions. An easier metric to gauge and one that does not rely on large numbers (such as research dollars, publications, people who know people or who become people). If we lower the standards to increase the number of students, what competitive advantage does Tulsa have over all other options in the State?
That's ignoring the fact that raising enrollment requires either a lowering of quality or an expenditure of funds, or both. It may not be a pure money making venture. And if the primary goal is to increase the fan base, then I'm glad we have people running the University that understand increasing a fan base is a lousy reason to admit more students.
Yes, I realize this sounds pretentious. My son is choosing among mostly public Universities, I went to undergrad at a public University, and I readily admit that an "elite" education doesn't necessarily mean better. But Tulsa's entire brand has been built trying to be among the best Universities, it would be very hard to change course now and try to be a mediocre mid-sized University with an unknown goal in mind.
This!!!!!!
His name alone would bring people and money in. And how many schools have a REAL player as AD?
Hire him and then put up a statue alongside Glenn's!
11% might be high at this point. A few years ago TU dramatically increased English proficiency scores before allowing admission and the number of Chinese students plummeted. If it has gone back up to 11%, academic rigor has taken a back seat to those who can pay full fare.
If we raise the number of students, it will be to pay down debt and continue to finance the entitlements the baby boomer faculty gave themselves for the next thirty years or so. It will have nothing to do with academic quality, affordability, or any of the other things used to dress it up, including increasing community participation, diversity. or fan loyalty.
So how do we suddenly get more qualified students, maintain the student faculty ratio, not need more instruction space or housing, etc.
Basically how do we grow without selling out or having to spend more money.
Or do we just stop the emphasis on quality and focus on cash?
Basically how do we grow without selling out or having to spend more money.
Or do we just stop the emphasis on quality and focus on cash?
I’ve shared my views in written form with the people best able to act upon them. It isn’t important to go into them here in depth and with specifics. But I can give you a global taste of where I would go ...
The University is at a vulnerable point. Higher education government funding may collapse in the next several years at rates not seen since the Carter Administration. At the same time, funding from endowment investment proceeds cannot be counted upon to soften the blow of decreased federal funds. While TU has made great efforts to seek and secure additional federal and research funding, it is speculative whether that success is sustainable. Compounding matters, tuition increases and flat lining salaries threaten middle class student entrance and middle class alumni donations. The University needs to be prepared inside and out for this potential volatility.
The resistance to further non- essential building projects is one of the reactions to potential future risks and current debt and income issues. But this is a simplistic response that may not place TU at the strategic advantage it might otherwise be in.
First, there are some on campus structural issues that need to be resolved. The Provost position has been under utilized for more than two decades, but particularly during the Upham era where Presidential leadership might supplant virtually every discretionary decision of academic staff at any moment. The President should be a strategic communicator, fundraiser, and storyteller. The President should be focused out and up. The face of the University. The Provost office should be focused downward and in but be strictly accountable. We just have not seen that since JPT was here.
The modern University presidency is changing rapidly. We cannot and should not depend on the Herculean skills and effort of someone like Upham to maintain an antiquated structure. The days of each College being in its own silo with the President as the lion tamer should end. A strong Provost is essential. Hopefully some one who is not male and over 50, btw. Somebody who has a proven track record of university administration, not inertia after thirty years on tucker drive. The Provost should complement the President, which is the danger of elevating candidates like Clancy. Their experience and leadership approach is usually similar to the Provost and makes the number two job redundant. When you see and hear Dr Clancy talking about his leadership on issues related to student experience and academic administration, this is a colossal mistake. The Provost should be handling this and be accountable to the President so Clancy can actually have time in the day to think and fundraise. We live in a new world. The TU brand can be tarnished forever with a single YouTube video or controversial incident. He should be owning the brand and ready to respond in an instant with credibility. He can’t do that if he is sorting out disputes between faculty members. The best Presidents solve the problems that nobody ever sees. The person that implements those solutions should be the Provost and then working down.
Formalized, professional fundraising training with performance metrics for the President, the AD, the diversity team, Panhellenic and the Deans pays for itself. None of the people in the current leadership structure, to my knowledge which is admittedly quite limited, has any formalized training or experience in fundraising. They are academics with on the job training. Some have a pretty good record. That’s still an outmoded business model. Gimme a list of essential skills in university leadership and academic credentials is on there, but it’s no longer number one or even number five. Proven fundraising techniques is number one. Sit me down with a bottle of whiskey and five Deans at various schools and it won’t be long before they admit they had no idea what they were doing in the fundraising realm and most admit they still don’t. Going to conferences on the subject put on by other academics isn’t acceptable anymore. Major corporate consulting firms conduct intensive training and have a proven track record of results. Engage them. Fundraising avenues will not be uncovered or unblocked without their services. We live in a new world.
The era of long tenured university presidents is over. Most stay eight years or less. Burn out, job transition to a larger university, or under performance are common. Combat this proactively with a concrete succession plan for Dr Clancy. The strategic plan should not merely consist of what he plans to do over the next four to eight years. Or what money we plan to raise. It should plan for, and account for, the four to eight years after he is gone. If we did that with Stead, I never saw it. And the results of the failure to properly plan were evident with the stumbling in the leadership transition and the current university financial situation. I have no doubt Clancy has the chops to handle the budget and press the flesh, but I also am betting he would agree that he feels underprepared for fundraising, particularly in areas outside his academic expertise. That can and should be addressed proactively. No person in his position would admit this shortcoming or request assistance, you’ve got to dig in and make it happen. Same with the short sighted short term thinking of what he wants to do during his tenure. We should end this business of having a new strategic plan just because we have a new President and new alignments on the Board. This short term thinking is killing us. Plan in decades, not in years or buildings or administrations.
You do a survey of 100 private companies with operating revenues the size of TU and I bet maybe two of them have leadership that was earned on the job. The rest went to major business schools and had a pattern of professional development. We should demand the same. While there are business schools, there are no President schools or Dean schools. That doesn’t mean these people aren’t prepared. But it does mean that they need credible coaching on the job now. Clancy doesn’t have time to provide it to the Deans nor would it be welcome from him in some cases. The Deans should be hitting fundraising numbers and have outside professional development guidance to cultivate performance or document non-performance. If all the want to do is run the faculty lounge and control the meetings and travel budget to decide whether their friends and enemies get nice vacations to academic conferences, they should look for another job. Similarly, Clancy should have the same.
Page two of that story is implementing a data driven, evidence based approach to future hires at the Dean level. You want to be Dean? Show me what you’ve done with fundraising and budget in your area working with development staff. Academic excellence, demographics, interpersonal skills and strategic alliances should no longer be directly relevant or tolerated in the selection process. Those are preferred not essential functions in administration.
TU and Clancy need to stabilize some programs and a few areas of finance before moving on to strategic issues and future growth. At the same time, the personal pressure to perform quickly, the internal need to realize change early in a transition, and the external financial pressures are obstacles to that process. They should bring in outside help and guidance. If the BOT and Dr. Clancy are unwilling to make that investment, future search committees should be required to narrow their search parameters to focus on candidates who are emerging from universities that do invest in such programs, like Georgetown, Arizona State and Stanford.
And we should definitely not expect overnight miracles. Universities measure success in centuries, not practice facilities built.
Last edited:
Some greats thoughts in your response - I agree with you on almost all of those issues. However, I can especially appreciate your approach to correcting TUs shortcomings. One thing businesses are finally beginning to understand is that data makes a difference... and use it to their benefit. TU should absolutely follow suit and make decisions based in data rather than gut feeling...
Although I may not always agree with your opinions regarding athletics, I can certainly respect your position on the university as a whole. Thank you for the response.
Similar threads
