Explaining our cautious stance on strategic planning

Recently, a colleague in Engineering informed us that he heard a rumor: that we were opposed to research excellence at UCR, and wanted us to be a "teaching college."  A further whopper: that we were implicitly backing the argument made in the UCSD letter for a two-tier system!!

Nothing can be further from the truth, but we realize that some recent statements urging caution about a singular focus on AAU status may have gotten twisted through various communications.  Here is where we stand:


Improving the research standing of the University is important for all of us.  Many faculty have been been concerned, not about the push for an AAU profile, but rather the particular way in which some have argued it should happen (in the Strategic Planning Town Hall, for instance, the chair of the Research Excellence committee noted erroneously that growing the sciences is the only way to achieve AAU status, while recent statements by the AAU note that a strong humanities and social science presence is critical for AAU member institutions).

Perhaps more concerning for some faculty is that--from a strategic planning point of view for the next few years--what a singular focus on AAU status might do to other parts of University operations.  We know pretty well that there will be more budget cuts next year, and perhaps even the year after that.  So, at what costs are faculty willing to impose when saving research and letting other parts of the University community get slashed (janitorial staff hours, department admin workload, student financial hardship, etc.)?  That is an open question, and we are simply stating that a singular focus on AAU status may not be the most helpful way to proceed.  It will not even help advance the research mission if, for instance, MSOs are stretched to the limit and facilities are less likely to be maintained.

So, many faculty are concerned not about AAU status as a goal (which they agree with), but with it being the over-riding goal at this particular time.

Furthermore, some of us have heard from high-level administrators that the AAU has given signals that it is unlikely to expand membership in the foreseeable future.  Instead of making just AAU the goal to rally around, we should be putting together a better message of who we are, and what we excel in (as opposed to our hopes to be recognized in the future).  Also, importantly, we heard from a member on a Gould Commission committee last week that having tiers of research and non-research campuses in the UC system is a non-starter.  It may be part of the fantasies of some colleagues at UCSD and elsewhere, but UCOP is not taking it seriously at all.  So, there is no basis for clinging to vague hopes of AAU status to address the (debunked) fear that we are not going to be a campus that excels in research.

Arnold's Plan: Are we safe?

Two weeks ago, the Governor outlined a plan to increase funding for higher education (setting a floor of 10%), and decreasing funding for prisons (setting a ceiling of 7%).  Sounds great, until you learn that this will have little or no impact for the next 3 years, with a proposed constitutional amendment kicking in only until 2014.

Something for UC advocates to keep in mind, as we will likely face another grueling budget season of proposed cuts from the state.