TU Financials
- Thread starter HuffyCane
- Start date
Just because he is trying to operate in 'the best interests of the city and for the school doesn't mean his well intentioned plans are the best for the school. And what he did with the leadership at TU was very much planned.
Many Progressive's across the nation think what he is doing is great, others disagree. I have no problems with the things he has done for the city. What I have a problem with is him pushing(with his money) the school into a completely different direction when the school is weak.
If he were being completely altruistic, he wouldn't care what the plan was as long as it seemed wise. And he would be helping the fight for Liberal Arts. Instead there is a social agenda. There is too much social planning going on, and not enough realization that liberal arts needs to be maintained. It needs to be maintained as much as it is physically possible in today's market. And this ain't it. Go screw with a newer non liberal arts school.
It's not a nudge into an well planned and slightly altered direction, it's a violent shove into a totally different direction. And lo and behold it just so happens to have social planning of the worst kind involved in the change in direction. This planning hasn't worked before, and I doubt it's going to succeed now. But that's beside the point.
The point is that Liberal Arts needs to be protected and guided in any way that is possible today, so that it doesn't evaporate into nothing over the next 100 years. They are bulldozing it. There is not that many institutions towing the line anymore, so it's a big deal when one of them goes down for the count, like TU is in the middle of doing.
When your school of computer science is labeled with the name Tandy, one thinks of the TRASH 80 computers made by Tandy and sold at Radio Shack. Not a good look and probably why we need to rename it something else.
I don’t think much of what you said is true. I’m not sure he’s pushing anything. Logic needs to control this discussion. You are making assumptions based on inferences.
They are aware. It can’t be changed without significant consequences. The counter view is that the name signals that we’ve been doing CS stuff since before cyber existed and long before anybody cared about computer security. So that gives us a certain credibility, at least that what some of the faculty think that don’t care what 18 year old kids think and their parents.
The biggest problem with the plan is what nobody wants to discuss: that every town the size of Tulsa has the same chamber of commerce aspirations as far as growing cyber but the school is remote and the involvement we have with it is insignificant and don’t and will never have the type of infrastructure that government and business look for before significant gifts and grants. There are 50 schools in Silicon Valley and the National Capital Region ahead of us. They’ve got two or three pet projects that faculty have cultivated relationships with business on, but they are laughably small by comparison to other peer institutions, even SMU, that have given little thought to making cyber an emphasis. We are talking about bragging about $2 and $3 million projects in a world where $500 million is a significant figure. We simply can’t grow to have the scale to be a player without becoming an OU cyber only satellite campus. And maybe thats the ultimate plan.
They also seem to be banking heavily on a change of administration helping them. They talk about working with the federal government but the feds have lots of choices more convenient and with historical ties to DC and procurement authorities than a school in the middle of nowhere that invites John Brennan to come to campus to talk about Cybersecurity, something that he is at best collaterally qualified to talk about and on whose watch at CIA some of the most significant cyber attacks in history took place. What they won’t listen to is people with good sense that say that Kaiser is severely damaged goods in the grant/procurement world due to Solyndra and they need a lower profile from him not higher.
Chito is a bit "aggressive" in his comments perhaps, but I am now convinced he is 100% right. We need new, competent leadership with experience leading a successful strategic change at a university.
We need this plain and simple. And if the board has any sense they will be willing to pay for what is needed. Anything else is short sighted. Cutting costs has its place but there needs to be a longer term growth plan internal and external stakeholders can get behind. The faculty committee was not the group to develop the plan, nor was a well meaning and competent medical leader new to a comprehensive university.
We need this plain and simple. And if the board has any sense they will be willing to pay for what is needed. Anything else is short sighted. Cutting costs has its place but there needs to be a longer term growth plan internal and external stakeholders can get behind. The faculty committee was not the group to develop the plan, nor was a well meaning and competent medical leader new to a comprehensive university.
Regardless of whether or not I'm making inferences the blame either lays with poor leadership or Kaiser. I think it's a little of both. The argument of what is happening at TU is the same either way. This plan got shoved through either way. It is not good for TU. Replacing leadership is not easily changed right now, and some of the blame for that is on Kaiser's plate. He made it such.
LOL, I thank you for your discretion, my friend
Needless to say, I agree 10000% with you.You hint at a good question- can a "polite" revolt ever work in an institution like TU that is structurally and culturally set up to ignore its constituents and
participants? If everyone was nice and respectful, what would happen? Or do firebrands and human bowling balls play a critical role? I haven't seen research, but I strongly think that polite revolts are doomed to fail almost always and you need the people who are willing to put it on the line, speak truth to power and say the unpopular things. That's why I have no problem with Howland - without him, the admin would have quickly crushed the dissent and TU would be moving blithely and ignorantly to full enactment of TU Committed without a second thought. I don't agree with everything he says or even think his style and approach are the most effective but I have no doubt that he was critical for the strong push back.
Well fwiw, this is a topic we debated in-depth back in June, so I guess the message board does have some informational value. The data are grim and suggest this is a moonshot for TU, for all the reasons I mentioned back then.
Keep in mind, we're not just competing with Indianapolis and Minneapolis and Las Vegas to be top of the 3rd tier of technology cities (first 2 tiers is not possible), but with cities around the globe.
And one of the best predictors of whether a region will become a tech hub is % of adult population with a 4 year degree. Needless to say, the public education funding view of the legislature is a major problem.
https://tulsa.forums.rivals.com/threads/this-is-not-going-well.17986/
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/for-most-cities-the-tech-boom-is-a-bust
Favorite Gilligan story:
We went to a Valley tourney in Wichita several years ago. Gilligan made the road trip as well, probably figuring that there would be tickets to buy and sell.
Of course JD couldn’t get us out of the first round, and Gilligan shows up in our section offering to buy all tickets to future sessions at about $4 each. He must have spent at least few hundred bucks as pretty much everyone was ready to leave.
What he didn’t expect was that the Shockers would lose immediately after our game, making all of those tickets worthless.
Poor kid.
I guess "build a tech center in your mid-sized city" was the keynote presentation at last year's Rich Guy Conference. Interesting that this guy is partnering with the university to expand its scope rather than overhauling its vision. I think part of TU Committed is in support of Tulsa's tech dream and part is in support of the social engineering/justice vision of the architect's of TU Committed.
"A $100 Million Bet That Vacationland Can Be a Tech Hub, Too
A benefactor’s big gift will create a research center in Portland, Maine, testing a small city’s ability to prosper as a magnet for innovation."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/business/economy/portland-maine-economy.html
In addition to the down turn in President Clancy’s condition and the resulting resignation, The board approved a resolution that the university must achieve financial sustainability, defined as positive cash flow, no later than FY23 and non-use of credit line by FY28.
Which begs the question, “Or What?”
Which begs the question, “Or What?”
Wait Clancy resigned? Man, I'm truly shocked Dumbfounded even. Who could ever have seen that coming?
I don't know but the optics are terrible - the powers that be say he's coming back but the scuttlebutt is that he's never coming back and lo and behold, he quits 2 weeks later. It certainly looks like it was another moronic, ham-handed, amateurish effort to manipulate people. It just seems like the administration lies reflexively about anything and everything, even if it doesn't matter, it's just who they are and what the do. I wouldn't trust them to tell me the time of day.
I went to my son's HS orientation last night and they have a Cybersecurity class in their computer science department. It's the flavor of the day, even high schools are getting in on it. Reminds me of the place we used to live, a 1 square mile city. One day it had 7 boba tea places, one on every block. A few months later, there was just 1 tea place and now there were 9 sushi places. A little later there were just 3 sushi places left and suddenly 12 pizza places. Then just 4 pizza places and on and on.
The HS also shows a real problem with cybersecurity - it's easily taught by programs that aren't 4 year, like boot camps and "certifiate progrms", JUCOs, etc. that are much faster and cheaper than TU. As a result, TU has to either (a) cater to people who are interested in cybersecurity but also want a 4 year degree even though it's not necessary or (b) are interested in high level (MA or PhD) programs. It's a market with a very successful and vibrant lower end segment, which is a notoriously hard place to compete.
LOL, I take great comfort knowing TU's program is more advanced than my son's HS class. But your point is the same as mine - with a robust lower end, to compete, TU has to move "upmarket", to provide higher and better education But that's the EXACT OPPOSITE of what TU is doing otherwise, where we're moving downmarket to compete with the NEOSUs and Arkansas Pine Bluffs of the world How do you sell cybersecurity as best in class in a university otherwise aspiring to be a local/regional vo tech? How many people want to pay higher level education tuition for a program that, other than the core classes, isn't much different than TCC? There are a few schools with one or two top tier programs in otherwise ordinary or below average schools but not many, it's very hard to do. That's why this focus is so strange.
Same is true for faculty. Why would top tier faculty stay at a third tier school if they could go someplace better, with better pay, more interesting colleagues in adjacent areas and a better reputation? It's going to be very hard to attract the faculty we need to compete in the space we've chosen.
The other problem with CS programs is they're incredibly cyclical, very boom and bust. And cybersecurity will be even more than other areas since it's not required for product. TU needs to be prepared for 10 year stretches where this program flounders If you were a top tier faculty, would you trust TU to wait it out, given what just happened? I sure as hell wouldn't.
Last edited:
Ok I understand that the next incoming class is expected yo be larger than this year, which was an all time record.
Also, the tuition revenue from the class is expected to increase too.
This was accomplished with some changes to recruiting strategy and limiting full ride scholarships.
It also seems to have been done IN SPITE of "true commitment" which has obviously been a disaster in every sense.
Time for a new board and new leadership EXCEPT for whoever is heading up recruiting strategy.
Also, the tuition revenue from the class is expected to increase too.
This was accomplished with some changes to recruiting strategy and limiting full ride scholarships.
It also seems to have been done IN SPITE of "true commitment" which has obviously been a disaster in every sense.
Time for a new board and new leadership EXCEPT for whoever is heading up recruiting strategy.
There has already been some realignment of admissions responsibilities in the last few months. Many of the gains you discuss above are not attributable to any individual but a team effort as well as better use of some of the software tools TU utilizes to determine which potential student recruits would be a good fit for TU, which ones are likely to finish and what exactly they will pay as a high price point. Put simply, amongst the students we are charging, we are doing a better job of avoiding negotiating against ourselves. At least that’s the party line around the water cooler at Collins Hall. I’m sure there’s a more conspiratorial answer.
I was voted least likely to believe in a conspiracy.
On the other hand I can see a mess when it is in front of me.
LOL, this is pretty funny. I said 2 years ago that TU needed to be leading edge in recruiting, retention and monetization software (I've seen a lot of these companies at tech startup competitions that I've judged) and you guys roundly dismissed it and said they were state of the art. So much for that.
As always, we're lagging behind the smart schools who have been driving profits like this for years. This is failed leadership yet again. I'm not upset that I was right, but I'm bitter that the answer was RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF OUR EYES and we f#*#@d it up - AGAIN.
We completely turned the school upside down and, oops, we just needed more effective leaders in recruiting and more forward thinking in the use of tech. I wonder what liberal arts would have done with halfway decent recruiting behind it? Kinda makes the "not enough students in those majors" argument look silly, doesn't it? I guess we'll never know. We amputated the leg over a sprained toe.
Last edited:
A conspiracy tries to make innocuous things look bad. You really can't make this look any worse - we gutted the school only to find out that the problem was bad recruiting. We eliminated departments when the failure was not their fault. What would be worse than that? The conspiracy would be "recruiting was the problem all along". That's a hell of a good conspiracy. But they're bragging about it instead. It's not a conspiracy, it's true. SMH. We destroyed TU for nothing.
Last edited:
You have something personal against huffy? I mean I get disagreeing, but seems like you’re taking it really personally.
I'm taking the destruction of TU very personally. I loved TU and I'm really bitter about what's happening there.
I don't have an issue with Huffy - in fact he's very useful since he communicates the messaging of the administration to us. But I know he's just the messenger. I rail against the administration, not him. And I acknowledge that he has a damn hard job - so much of what he has to pass on is just idiotic, but he messenges what he's told to messenge, and he does it with an admirably stiff upper lip and with as much dignity as one could be expected to manage given the load he has to carry.
If it seems to him or others that I am railing against him I apologize. He is not the one I have an issue with. Nothing in my posts above is directed at him. I know he doesn't control what happens, he's just telling us. It would be way better if we could get Levitt to post on here but I can't see that happening.
I mean, it is pretty shocking to find out after all we've been through that the answer was just better teamwork and use of technology in recruiting, don't you think?
Last edited:
It wouldn't be better to have Levit on here and telling us what's going on. That's about as effective as Trump tweeting policy out to the world. Levit really needs to let the PR people prepare and write all of her messages to the campus community and public. We're only discussing this because the way she phrased the initial announcement was an abject disaster. It missed the point of why they were doing what they were doing and did it in such a way that it offended a majority of individuals with a stake in the university.
I think they explained the financial reasons pretty well. But they didn’t explain a lot of the reasoning behind other decisions at all. They were highly disrespectful of many stakeholders. But the math argument has always been there and, unfortunately, it’s still being disregarded by many of the critics. “But athletics . . .”
Very fair and even handed analysis. I think the school's utter lack of credibility and truthfulness has unfortunately left the door open for budget deniers, who are wasting their time not focusing on the important point, which is how stupid and destructive the TU Committed plan is.
It's unfortunate because the budget situation does not in any way, shape or form justify TU Committed. There are 1000+ plans that could have addressed the budget and not been TU Committed. So accepting the budget reality, as I do, does not mean accepting TU Committed. The doctor said lose weight and the admin says "we have to amputate our legs!" Mission accomplished!
Then again, Huffy pointed out that the budget issue is ENTIRELY FIXABLE with some fairly minor improvements in recruiting. I can't believe people aren't in the streets with pitchforks. If true, that's one of the most dishonest, colossal failures of leadership ever. We burned down the house because someone spilled wine on the rug. Especially since the improvements were obvious, even for people not in academics. These were easy fixes that would have rendered TU Committed unnecessary - but we held off doing them until AFTER rolling out TU Committed. If they had made these fixes 9 months earlier, how would they have justified TU Committed? Hhhmmm. Makes you wonder.
Well, no, we're talking about it because it's a stupid and destructive plan. If she had been less honest about it upfront, would we be talking about it less because we would not appreciate how stupid and destructive it is? Maybe, but I doubt it. I think people would have figured it out.
If she had come out and said "We're cutting these majors because they are under performing. They use a lot of valuable resources which we feel is better utilized by reinvesting them into some of our more high demand programs, like engineering and computer science. In turn we will also work with local and regional employers to ensure our programs are best serving our students and preparing them to enter the work force into high demand, high skill positions immediately upon degree completion" we would not be harping on this nearly as much. Essentially that is what she said except it was not laid out in a neat, concise way. Instead, she butchered the delivery of the message and created more confusion than it solved and also the way she handled the aftermath just plain pissed people off. Messaging is everything. You can deliver bad news in such a way to alleviate some of the hurt. Instead she created distrust.
But you're debating whether the Titanic's band should play Brahms or Beethoven. Its just not the point. I think the ham handed rollout actually helped the school by focusing on whether to cut and if so, whether to cut program A or X, which as Gold points out, isn't at all the issue. The real question is, should we turn TU into a regional vo-tech? The cuts assume that the answer is yes but the cuts are symptoms not causes.
