follow-up report on the university center rochester presented to the rochester higher education...

Follow-up Report on the

University Center Rochester

Presented to the

Rochester Higher Education Development Committee

September 8, 2005

Louellen N. Essex, Ph.D.

Louellen Essex & Associates

Louellen Essex & Associates 9/8/05

Issues Identified in 1999 Study

Leadership not clearly defined, decision-making sluggish, no one really in charge

U of M programs not developed as community wanted; RCTC dominant

Shared funding for UCR not adequate Mission of UCR not understood, agreed upon

by Steering Council Incentives to partner not in place


Recommendations (1999)

1. Premature to engage the the UCR Steering Committee in discussion of roles, responsibilities and planning.

2. Senior administration of MnSCU and U of M should clarify mission, partner roles, decision making process, success measures and accountability.


2005 Study and MethodologyGoal: To answer these questions:

1. What, if anything, has changed in how governance and leadership is performed at UCR.

2. What is working well and should stay in place.3. What is not working, should be changed and how.

Method: Structured interviews and document review


What is Working1. Roles and responsibilities are clearer than in

1999. Roles, responsibilities delineated Management Agreement established Branch campus of U of M established, RCTC and

WSU-Rochester intact Shared Provost eliminated Agreed to jointly plan for coordinated resources and

services, shared financial support and development, delivery of academic programs.

U of M - Academic leadership, upper division and graduate

RCTC - Lower division and facility management


What is Working

2. All partner institutions have created more programs and pathways have been established.


What is Working

3. WSU and RCTC report satisfaction with their partnership.


What is Working

4. RCTC is viewed as providing excellent programs, serving the community extremely well.


What is Working

5. Some joint planning has occurred through UCR Advisory Council, academic committee, individual institution efforts.


What is Working

6. Shared classroom scheduling and reception services are particularly effective.


What is Working

7. All three institutions viewed by stakeholders as providing valuable service.


Barriers to UCR Effectiveness

1. University of Minnesota identity is not distinct enough.

• Community views campus as RCTC• Students don’t feel part of U of M• Signage and co-location of administrative offices

has been recent• Difficult to attract student population the UMR

desires• Many believe U needs own physical facility


Barriers to UCR Effectiveness2. Transfer from RCTC to U of M Health

Sciences programs is cumbersome.• Prerequisites sometimes result in students

taking additional courses• Access to RCTC classes is sometimes

problematic• Counseling process is sometimes inadequate• Course content not ideal• Recruitment difficult - Students don’t want to

begin in community college



3. U of M struggles to fund upper division and graduate programs in absence of lower division courses.



4. Technical support and facilities requests are not always perceived as adequately handled by RCTC for the U of M.



5. Shared facility arrangements are not perceived by RCTC as adequately shared by the partners, especially the U of M.



6. Frustration with slow rate of growth of U of M academic programs and research capability.

Bioinformatics, genomic research needs are growing High tech economy outpaces UCR program delivery Mayo and IBM want U of M to move more aggressively U of M initiatives in place are disparate and not always

associated with the U Rochester community wants U as primary partner

given stature and brand Difficult for area employers to recruit Progress in southeast MN dependent on U of M

increasing its role



7. Strategic planning for UCR not fully integrated.

Dependent on home institution Not always aware of each other’s

program development Some competition to be first out Private schools have moved to fill some

needs



8. Community advocacy, particularly GRAUC, will be needed well into the future for vision to be realized.



9. Data does not appear to be collected through one database with same metrics.



10. UCR Management Agreement

focused on what now exists, with

little emphasis on growing and

expanding the UCR to meet future

needs.


Recommendations

1. The University of Minnesota should be granted the autonomy to become a 4-year university and develop a plan to establish a strong, distinct identity in partnership with IBM and Mayo Clinic. WSU should be given the same opportunity, if it so desires.


Recommendations

2. The University of Minnesota should accelerate its efforts to collaborate with Mayo Clinic and IBM around graduate academic programs and research in Health Sciences, Informatics, Genomics and Technology.


Recommendations

3. A comprehensive study of financial models to support the University of Minnesota should be conducted to guide decision-making on how best to develop the physical facilities as well as academic programs and research capability needed for the UMR to grow.


Recommendations

4. Collaboration between RCTC, WSU and the U of M should be encouraged. 2 + 2 programs will undoubtedly prosper. U of M should have autonomy to move forward aggressively in providing distinctive 4-year degree programs without constraints of mandated collaboration.

follow-up report on the university center rochester presented to the rochester higher education...

Documents