4/23/05 Notes Alumni Meeting
Linda Mona Host
(1) Alumni do not disagree with change - they believe that the University has to change to adapt to the current climate that has reduced state support of higher ed.
(2) CHE alumni do not want to be disregarded or marginalized in the process - they want their 105-year history and human ecology discipline to be recognized someway in the new university structure.
(3) Ideas shared are:
-Changing the name of the current College of Education and Human Development to reflect that a 'new' college is being formed with the addition of CHE's family social science program and school of social work, perhaps 'College of Human Development';
-If McNeal Hall cannot be retained for one of the new Colleges - that physical elements from McNeal (i.e. 'Home Economics' brickwork) be physically incorporated into a new college space; (This will help the alumni to feel as though they have a home at the U.)
-Capture the 'culture' of CHE - the integrated, holistic approach to teaching and research across the life span - in an 'Institute for Human Ecology' that would reside in the new College of Human Development; Current donor funds that support CHE and are administered by college administration could then be shifted into the new institute;
-Alumni would like to have representation on any future task force/committee being formed to implement the recommendations;
(4) Overall - alumni are positive about the direction the University is going and that - while sad at the loss of their college - they are excited about the future opportunities this change will bring.
U Strategic Plan Public Forum with CHE Alumni and Friends
Hosted by Ann Carlson Birt, Interlachen Country Club, Edina
April 27, 2005
Attendees:
Ann Carlson Birt
Linda Mona
Kay Kessel
Leigh Kessel
Angie Walker
Mavis Dresser
Mary Dykstra
Pauline Pattermatt (CLA grad and Friend)
Mary Galbraith
Bev Olson
Jill Mithune (MSW)
Chandra Bloodgood
Pamela Lowe
Lori Mollberg
Shirley Baugher, Dean
Information provided:
· Overview of funding streams at the U and CHE in relation to funding trends in higher education in the U.S.
· 10-year cycle of financial crises in higher education – structural deficit model of operation ($1 million at CHE, $50 million at the U)
· Increase in quantity and quality of CHE students over past 5 years: 1000 to 1700 students. CHE Retention 91%. CHE among the top 4 colleges at the U. Ranked #2 in the country for HE. Self-supporting.
· Why has the president recommended this reorganization?
· What is the timeline for recommendations, feedback, regents’ approval and transition planning.
· What can/should alumni do at this time?
· What are the talking points and key issues identified by CHE alumni?
· Provided copies of both taskforce reports and contact list for president and regents
Forum participants comments and questions:
· How and why did they decide to move our programs to education rather than their programs to us? Is this recommendation written in stone?
· Has the college been efficient in its operations and financial practices? Is this one of the reasons for the task force recommendation to split the college?
· Will the recommendations achieve the goal of becoming one of the top three public research universities simply by addressing structure? What are the other criteria considered in these rankings? (grants and contracts, endowments, diversity, outstanding students, timely graduation…)
· What will happen to the Goldstein Museum of Design?
· Is there a national trend among universities and colleges to eliminate human ecology?
· Are CHE graduates successful professionally? Do they get career assistance or placement services? Are they tracked in this area? Do they give back to the college as donors? Do employers seek CHE graduates and recruit our students on campus?
· Were the deans told not to tell anyone about the recommendations until after they were made public?
· Many alumni learned about this in the papers and were very upset to hear it this way. What was the communication process related to these recommendations?
· What about donors? Where will our contributions go if the college splits apart?
· I’ve heard other alumni talk about the idea of an “Institute of Human Ecology.” What would that look like? How might it function? Would it have degree programs? What else might it do?
· Why weren’t there people on the task forces representing the colleges where very prescriptive changes were recommended? How can the University ethically exclude these people from the process?
· Where do the Regents stand on these recommendations? Are they going to act as a rubber stamp? When and how might we influence their decisions?
· What are the driving forces behind these recommendations?
· What will happen at the Regents Forum on May 16th and what can we do to help influence this process?
· Talking points identified by CHE alumni:
1. We understand that change will happen.
2. We support the overarching goal of the University to become one of the top three public research institutions.
3. We don’t think the plan is bold enough to accomplish this goal.
4. We do not agree with the process and timing for some of these recommendations. We should not vote on college structural changes until a taskforce and transition planning team make recommendations in December and be sure to include people on that task force from the units where change has been recommended.
· We think the prescriptive recommendations made for some colleges but task forces for others is unethical and unfair. We need to allow the people who are going to live this new future to help create it.
Dear CHE administrators,
You are welcome to share my comments with others at the
University of Minnesota. You appear to have any number of
committees with regards to the restructuring process, and are best
suited for knowing who might benefit from my comments.
First of all, I am a graduate of the University of Minnesota, College
of Home Economics, 1978, with a degree in Home Economics
Education. I have my graduate degrees (M.S. and Ph.D.) in Human
Development and Family Studies from Oregon State University. My
mother also graduated from U of M-CHE in 1952, in Home
Economics Education.
As an individual working in the field of family and consumer
sciences I have always been proud to be a graduate of such a good
program, one that is well recognized for the preparation given to
students. I feel the university is not only making a mistake in closing
the College of Human Ecology, but one that will have a negative
impact on the field in general. You state in your press releases that
the holistic approach will be continued. My response is, "no, it
won't". People need time and interaction with each other to keep
the holistic, life span approach of the field in the forefront of their
research and teaching agendas. Otherwise, we are simply experts
in our own little slice, but don't remember the whole.
It is tragic that programs serving individuals and families, focusing
on healthy life styles and optimal family functioning are the ones that
administrators first consider for closure. It's also not coincidental
that these programs have higher numbers of female students in the
majors.
As an alum, who has made donations to CHE student scholarships
in the past, I will be giving my donations to other universities in the
future, and will encourage my mother also to reconsider any gifts to
U of M. Although my donations have not been substantial, as we
have not had a raise of ANY type at my university in 4 years, every
little bit does count when it comes to support of education.
In closing, I am deeply disappointed in the University of Minnesota. I
don't care a bit about how the Gophers do in any sports activity, but
I do care about education.
Sincerely,
Cynthia J. Schmiege, Ph.D.