Post reply

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Verification:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
What color is an apple, it starts with an r?:
What is 5 plus 5?:
Which Dakota has the city of Fargo:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: pmp6nl
« on: January 14, 2008, 10:34:31 PM »

It is a tough issue to approach, especially figuring out why it happened and what to do about it.
Posted by: Sal Atticum
« on: January 14, 2008, 09:52:33 AM »

This was supposedly in the GF Herald on Friday.  I'm no quite sure what this person's motivation is--for UND to have a lot of students for the sake of a lot of students?  First he says that you can have a school with the capacity for more students but choose not to (example Harvard), then he says that we need more students to build ourselves up to capacity.  I'm not sure what the big deal is with 1.2 percent in a year.  Yes, the question can be asked "Why did enrollment drop?", but I don't think the immediate answer is "We have to increase enrollment or the world is going to end!" 

This guy is worried about cutbacks happening because of a drop in enrollment.  I can see that, but I can also see that it's the state's job to provide the service of the University.  Nobody forced them into getting into the state university game, but now that their in, they have to keep providing those services to the students who wish to get an education (as well as those students who are here to get a diploma).  The author doesn't mention the Division I shift.  If you take the money that will be going toward that and put it toward, I don't know, EDUCATING THE STUDENTS, we might not be in a situation where we need worry about a piddling 1.2 percent drop in enrollment.



Quote
Enrollment isn't the only measure of UND. But it's a measure, and the downward trends at the university must be reversed.

Why? Because North Dakota State University's enrollment has passed or is very likely to pass UND's?

No. Bragging rights aren't the issue here. Programming is the issue: UND has the buildings and faculty to accommodate more students. But the numbers keep going down instead of up, and the lost revenue from three years of enrollment declines may take its toll on UND's next annual budget, to quote Herald staff writer Joseph Marks' Dec. 15 story (Enrollment drop may lead to belt tightening, Page 1A).

That - not NDSU's growth - is the really troubling news.

UND should gear up to make sure the decline is reversed.

Colleges and universities are funny things: not businesses, not charities, not hospitals. . . . So, traditional measures of organizational health don't always apply.

Consider enrollment - specifically, growing enrollment. Businesses always want more customers, so colleges always want more students. Right?

Wrong. Harvard University and other selective schools could triple their enrollments, but they choose not to. Instead, they keep enrollments stable at what they consider to be an optimum size, and grow their endowments instead.

Harvard now has so much money per student that undergraduates whose families make less than $60,000 a year can attend almost for free.

In fact, there are colleges that have grown too fast, some higher-education analysts say. When enrollment growth outruns revenue and endowment growth, students can wind up in crowded and shabby facilities - and that school's reputation will suffer over time.

In UND's case, the university could accommodate up to about 15,000 students, including 12,500 on campus and 2,500 through distance learning, administrators have said in the past.

One of President Charles Kupchella's early goals was to have 14,000 students enrolled by 2005. That always seemed about right: Enough to take full advantage of the campus and its facilities, but not so much that classrooms would feel jammed.

If enrollment had reached 14,000 and stabilized, UND then could have chosen either to build more buildings and grow even more, or hold firm on the numbers and pull in more dollars per student. Those are the choices a university likes to make.

But enrollment never reached 14,000. Instead, it hit about 13,200; and rather than steadying out at that point, it started to slip. The first-day spring enrollment now stands at 11,141, a 1.4 percent drop compared to this time last year.

UND officials are keenly aware of these trends and are working hard to reverse them. That work should continue and be made an even higher priority, if possible. Enrollments do fluctuate and occasional dips must be expected. But when those dips reach the point that administrators start fretting about cutbacks, then the time for explanations has passed and the time for strong action has come.

The finalists to be UND's next president will be visiting campus this month; the first - Robert Kelley, dean of health sciences at the University of Wyoming - makes his first public appearances today.

The need to grow UND's enrollment should be a core topic of the interviews as the search committee continues its work.
Posted by: Sal Atticum
« on: January 11, 2008, 04:27:20 PM »

Classical Liberal.  That means reverse of now-Liberal.
Posted by: pmp6nl
« on: January 11, 2008, 04:04:49 PM »

I'm a fiscal conservative and a social classical liberal/jeffersonian.

A liberal... oh my
Posted by: JakeJZG
« on: January 11, 2008, 04:02:26 AM »

I'm a fiscal conservative and a social classical liberal/jeffersonian.
Posted by: pmp6nl
« on: January 11, 2008, 03:20:45 AM »

I take it you are on the other side of the fence?
Posted by: JakeJZG
« on: January 11, 2008, 03:12:16 AM »

LIE            berals.
Posted by: pmp6nl
« on: January 11, 2008, 02:52:33 AM »

LIE berals.

LIE.

DO YOU SEE WHAT I DID THERE?

Yes, I was just questioning the accuracy of it. ... Sounds like an over generalization.
Posted by: JakeJZG
« on: January 11, 2008, 02:28:57 AM »

LIE berals.

LIE.

DO YOU SEE WHAT I DID THERE?
Posted by: pmp6nl
« on: January 10, 2008, 08:21:27 PM »

Those damned LIEberals.



;)

Now now.

...mburtonk I remember reading a few articles about this a few years ago, I will see if I can find anything.
Posted by: JakeJZG
« on: January 09, 2008, 10:16:38 AM »

Sources?  LIEberals!
Posted by: Sal Atticum
« on: January 09, 2008, 09:12:06 AM »

I hadn't heard about this--do you two have any sources I can read up?
Posted by: JakeJZG
« on: January 09, 2008, 02:21:33 AM »

Those damned LIEberals.



;)
Posted by: pmp6nl
« on: January 09, 2008, 12:26:03 AM »

It's probably more males than females, since the entirety of our educational system from K-12 up is geared towards women.

and its leaving men behind... a growing problem
Posted by: JakeJZG
« on: January 07, 2008, 01:30:30 PM »

It's probably more males than females, since the entirety of our educational system from K-12 up is geared towards women.
realistic
anything