TEMPLATE For PRESIDENTS' PERSPECTIVES On HOW THE INSTITUTION AND THE OUS SHOULD WORK TOGETHER TO ENHANCE SUCCESS AND INSURE A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE FOR POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION IN OREGON (No overall response should exceed ten single-spaced pages) (Deadline for responses is May 10, so that copies can be distributed for discussion at May 17 SSP Meeting) (Please be as clear as possible about relative priorities or temporal orderings of proposed changes or strategies. The purpose here is to hear what you perceive as MOST IMPORTANT, not to get your detailed plan for the future.)

Section I: Responses to Facilitator's summary of the April 18 discussion with respect to the context in which Oregon higher education will be operating.
 

**w/respect to all 3, money is the top priority. public higher ed is one of the few things government can "solve" by throwing money at. w/respect to access, the major challenge (aside from $) is to improve it without sacrificing quality. access is easier to measure than quality and is an easier sell to voters, so it tends to get more attention. w/respect to quality, there seems to be no satisfactory way to describe/measure/prove quality in higher ed to most voters and legislators. to many, quality simply means having an affordable college nearby. the major challenge, it seems, is recognizing it (and lack of it).**

**1.Clearly distinguish the mission of our large research universities from that of the regional campuses. 2. Create a model of what we want the OUS to look like, skipping the rhetoric of "world class," "dynamic," and other feel-good descriptors. How many research universities can we afford? Do we want one excellent university and n mediocre ones, do we want 2 pretty good ones, etc? 3. Determine how much funding this will require and develop a strategy for obtaining it. 4. Sell the goal and the strategy.**

**I would support a single entity. Call it Oregon University, just to give it a name. It ought to have a single crown jewel campus (Oregon can't and won't support more), a significant research component at 2 or 3 other sites (including Portland), and a number of regional campuses geared to relatively nearby students. Each campus should have a significant degree of autonomy w/respect to meeting its mission, but not the autonomy to define its mission. Such a system would require a strong chancellor/board and come at the expense of the power of individual campuses. The system we have now guarantees the kind of self-interested skirmishing among campuses that results in higher ed being unable to communicate a clear message. In the short time I'v been an IFS member, every legislator we've met has told us that our inability to speak with one voice makes it easier for them not to pay attention to our needs.**

**OHSU is unique because it is mainly a professional training/research center and because it's a public corporation. I don't know how to answer the questions in sections II - IV, other than to say I believe that our move to become a public corporation was wise. Had higher ed in Oregon fared better over the years, it might not have been the best decision. I am convinced that, given current circumstances, we could not legitimately aspire to be one of the top 25 academic medical centers in the US as part of OUS.**

**My ideas wouldn't change if funding were increased. If funding were to remain the same (sorely underfunded), I would consider a strategy that included: relying more on distance education to take care of some of the students now attending regional campuses; closing at least one of those campuses; targeting financial aid toward the most gifted students. I'd keep the "Oregon University" concept. If funding were substantially reduced, I'd consider a strategy that led to complete autonomy for each campus and doing away w/the OUS. I'd also consider changing our state's name to West Mississippi. **

**I don't believe we can expect anything good from the governor and legislature in the reasonably near future. It's more a matter of knowing how bad things will be soon enough to prepare. I do believe that the first steps must be taken by OUS. OUS must articulate a vision that is reasonable (given Oregon's resources and political climate) and compelling. Its vision should include a way of measuring success. It also needs to be OUS's vision, and not a cobbled-together mishmash of rhetoric and wishes from every political/economic interest group out there. There'll be time for that later. **

**With a single "Oregon University," there's an obvious locus for accountability. With autonomous campuses, there's individual campus accountability. With our system, even if it's somewhat more decentralized, I don't know where accountability resides.**