The Cuts Just Keep on Coming

[Atlanta Griz1]

The education one receives on a campus is not just from classes. It is from experiencing the diversity of people, cultures, and philosophies that molds an individual into a well-rounded person capable of critical thought and problem-solving.

Notice = you said that, and I did not. :loser:

Don't try to misunderstand that UM has to adjust to the new dynamics in existence now. You don't like it, but UM must adjust and provide a new delivery channel.

The UM leadership has to find the best way to deliver the well-rounded education with the most positives and at a competitive price. If they do not lead UM into this "new delivery channel" then UM will struggle.

New technology has "changed" and caused "disruption" to old higher-education delivery channels and the current/future college education delivery channel will be different. The investment that King George directed into new buildings on the UM Campus was misguided. Years ago a 18-year old needed to pack up and move to a college campus to get the higher education, and now the college education is delivered to the student over the internet and college guidance counseling is done via text/Skype/eMail.

I would never hire a "college grad" with a degree from the internet. An internet degree will never substitute for a campus degree.

Cute graph, obviously written by some code-head. There is a reason why computer geeks work in cubicles, and not in the executive suites.

OBTW, who have you hired this year or last year or two years ago ? I would never hire a "college grad"

Uh, just to dumb it down for ya, I do not consider internet degrees to be worth anything

 

[griz4life]

The bottom of the bottom line is very simple. UM is in serious decline because of POOR LEADERSHIP FROM OUR PRESIDENT. No other explanation is needed.

ROYCE ENGSTROM MUST BE REQUIRED TO EXIT... AND SOON.

THE REGENTS ARE DRINKING WINE AND EATING MOLDY GRAPES OBLIVIOUS TO THE DEMISE OF OUR UNIVERSITY. DUMBFOUNDED AND LIKE TRUMP WOULD SAY " STUPID " They need to get in the " game "

As a side note old Growler/Atlanta was spot on, (at least 85 %). What some spaced out msu lovers like Seattle, dogct and others have to state on our board is not worth 25 cents of dog poop.

Agreed. UM is doing way worse than other liberal arts schools. It's losing students and money faster than most state universities and colleges. Engstrom should be fired and so should Christian for allowing this to continue.

 

[tgreseth]

Show of hands. How many people want to move from Missoula to Bozeman?

That's what I thought.

That works both ways pal.

He's not your pal, buddy.

 

[Eriul]

Education is more expensive than it's ever been. Why would an 18 year old kid go to 4 more years of schooling, put themselves in high amounts of debt, and focus their studies on one particular field when we all know degrees don't get you well paying jobs. It doesn't take a genius to understand that we have to somewhat socialize our education system and invest in our kids. But this is 'Merica and we can't afford to send our kids to school because we have to make sure we have an f-15 plane for every citizen so we can bomb some towelheads

 

[GrizLA]

When Montanans finally realize that education is the future for EVERYONE and tax themselves like the most productive states do, then UM will catch up to what it once was. That does not look like it will happen any time soon.

 

[UMGriz75]

Education is more expensive than it's ever been. Why would an 18 year old kid go to 4 more years of schooling, put themselves in high amounts of debt, and focus their studies on one particular field when we all know degrees don't get you well paying jobs. It doesn't take a genius to understand that we have to somewhat socialize our education system and invest in our kids. But this is 'Merica and we can't afford to send our kids to school because we have to make sure we have an f-15 plane for every citizen so we can bomb some towelheads

Most states have been de-socializing public university funding for the past forty years. California used to provide free education to in-state residents. What happened? As other services were continually increased, and state employee wages and pension plans shot past equivalent private pay and benefits, and as social services were continuously expanded, the money for education ran out. It was "socialization" that is the precise cause of the drying up of public funding for public universities. It is an interesting irony.

Of course, the natural solution? Student loans! Flood the system with free money (as far as the Universities were concerned). What happens when the money is free? University spending increased as a numerical multiple of inflation. Who paid the price? Both the students burdened with the loans, and the students trying to pay the full fare themselves.

It was the perfect generosity of federal funds to replace state funds going to expanded state government functions, that wrecked the financial rationality entirely and injured everyone involved, except of course those politicians who believe there is no problem that cannot be solved with "government money." I.e., "other people's."

 

[GrizLA]

Education is more expensive than it's ever been. Why would an 18 year old kid go to 4 more years of schooling, put themselves in high amounts of debt, and focus their studies on one particular field when we all know degrees don't get you well paying jobs. It doesn't take a genius to understand that we have to somewhat socialize our education system and invest in our kids. But this is 'Merica and we can't afford to send our kids to school because we have to make sure we have an f-15 plane for every citizen so we can bomb some towelheads

Most states have been de-socializing public university funding for the past forty years. California used to provide free education to in-state residents. What happened? As other services were continually increased, and state employee wages and pension plans shot past equivalent private pay and benefits, and as social services were continuously expanded, the money for education ran out. It was "socialization" that is the precise cause of the drying up of public funding for public universities. It is an interesting irony.

Of course, the natural solution? Student loans! Flood the system with free money (as far as the Universities were concerned). What happens when the money is free? University spending increased as a numerical multiple of inflation. Who paid the price? Both the students burdened with the loans, and the students trying to pay the full fare themselves.

It was the perfect generosity of federal funds to replace state funds going to expanded state government functions, that wrecked the financial rationality entirely and injured everyone involved, except of course those politicians who believe there is no problem that cannot be solved with "government money." I.e., "other people's."

You are considerably "off" on California, which, actually, ranks 7th in the nation now in all education spending with the Universities having increased spending averaging 1.7%. You generalize, of course, but Proposition 13, has changed everything in California when it comes to public funding. You are absolutely correct in seeing the relationship of "financial aid availability' and the rising costs. Universities raise their costs as the aide rises...it is a circle that must be broken somewhere. What bothers me is the number of private schools, like Stanford, with billions in endowments, and hundreds of millions in research grants, etc., that still actively raise funds, while the high schools that feed them are continuously fighting for more money. I get 3 publications each month from Stanford begging for money....greed is rampant today and no one wants to even discuss it on a level that might make a difference. I guess, it depends upon one's moral code or values. But, as the poster above said, it is somehow more important for this country to spend hundreds of billions for fighter planes and basically obsolete weaponry. As for UM, they would do well to go private and rid themselves of the straight jacket of the political crowd that makes up the Regent's. Alas, that won't happen. Mediocrity and less is on the horizon.

 

[UMGriz75]

These kids need a lot of support, and the state simply won’t foot the whole bill. Per-pupil spending in California is among the lowest in the country. Last year, the federal government contributed $7 billion to education in California. While this is only a fraction of the state’s education budget, it literally cannot operate schools without these funds.

http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/federal-government-must-play-major-role-in-teaching-america-s/article_b140dfd8-b788-5050-a2be-4b1e7c27f226.html

The California State Senate has been firmly in Democratic Party hands since 1975. The State Assembly, for all but two years since 1971. Jerry Brown was governor 1975-1982, and since 2011.

The wealthiest state also raises the most in taxes. It is the standard "Blue Model" state. It funds every favorite political group. It spends endlessly on crony capitalism and endless perks for Party Donors. Now, it will be short nearly $60 billion for state employees retirements, and $70 billion for teacher retirements. It has spent the money.

Out of "compassion" -- read, "votes" -- it has spent generously on the necessary welfare and programs to ensure continued control by the Democratic Party. In Milton Friedman's view, the classic result: subsidize poverty and you will have more poverty. How else could a fabulously wealthy state have such high percentages of poor and impoverished? Because, as long as they are, they will vote the right way. They are a necessary part of governance.

What got shortchanged? Education.

 

[Umista]

Last! Yes the last thing Montana wants is to be is like California. High Taxes, illegals running rampant, regulations that stop small business before they can get started, hand outs to every one making under $44,000, of course SAn Fran sticks out like a nut village. The state is broke! Yet the dems keep on passing more pork.
Last thing Montana needs is to copy California! Stanford? Still great to have a degree from but hell otherwise...

 

[Grizfan-24]

I'll preface this by saying I am in education, and have an alternate point of view on the whole education finance issue for some time. I don't think schools need more money, they need to be more efficient. Just saying that education is being robbed of much needed money, doesn't necessarily provide a full picture.

There is an excellent chunk of research about how much schools spend and how it directly translates to better results. Most schools in most states have roughly the same type of margins for students. I'll use Blaine County (Sun Valley as an example) they absolutely throw money (the highest in idaho) about 14,000 per student. What does that translate to? Test results that are and do approach the state average. If you are interested in perusing the data: https://interactives.americanprogress.org/projects/edu-roi/2011/Main.swf

All the research says throwing money doesn't translate into better education. Needs to be spent wisely. Like all bureaucratic entities, schools aren't managed to spend money efficiently. Moreover schools rarely can show the type of proactive understanding of how to improve student learning and react using industry standardized methodologies to create better results. My former school district spent 50 to 100 grand over the past decade in sending teachers to conferences, bring in consultants. The result? The same results as before. You can spend all the money on teaching teachers, but the reality is that school districts who succeed understand their population base far more and tailor their services and focus their money in providing services that are going to bring results.

As for the state of Montana, the University of Montana and enrollment. The UofM is behind the times. You can hate on on-line education, but the fact of the matter why should it matter where you learn. There are obvious benefits to person-to-person relationships that are fostered by traditional campus settings. But if you are going to be hired by the same firm, business regardless if you attend a four year traditional school, or on on-line program that provides competency based education where you can complete the same work in half of the time, why wouldn't you choose the second? You can complete through WGU an education for elementary teachers in essentially 2.5 years, where the same college requirements at the UofM push over the 4 year average for teh same. The cost? About 15 grand for WGU. The cost for a comparative 4 year school in the region for the same? Pushing closer to 50 grand. If you use BSU or UI you are looking at 10 grand a year for that campus experience. The economic return is absurd. Most on-line programs hire rates are competitive or even exceed traditional 4- year schools.

Why pay for things you don't have to, because of what? Experience, culture, and a liberal arts education. Secondly, you choose on-line systems of education because they are competency focused, eliminate all the chaff, and focused on your major field.

That being said, I am of firm belief the UofM needs to find a clear direction forward. If it wants to remain a classic 4 year liberal arts school that wants to focus on broadening people's experience, then you are going to have to work incredibly hard to sell the culture and not the programs. Being a Humanities major, a social sciences major doesn't sell like it did once before. There isn't a big economic return, especially in field, for many liberal arts programs. That doesn't mean you should punt those programs an add in a bevy of revenue producing programs, but it does mean you are going to have to work to sell efficiency, experience and the quality of education. Because the UofM doesn't differentiate itself academically from its peers, or hasn't perceptively, and the status quo isn't working.

I think the blame can be placed in Engstrom's lap, not because he caused it, but rather he has been at least publicly very obtuse and slow to respond. Engstrom, at least anecdotally, is a fine man and does recognize the problems, but you have to begin to question if he or the regents have a long term plan. Montana as a school is way too important for the university admin, city and state to be so slow and ponderous and come up with so few rational responses to the issues. There are obviously better people out there than I to provide solutions, but this can't be sustainable for much longer as it is.

 

[Spanky]

Tragic what is happening to UM, however, our only hope for positive change is when Engstrom retires.

 

[Atlanta Griz1]

I'll preface this by saying I am in education, and have an alternate point of view on the whole education finance issue for some time. I don't think schools need more money, they need to be more efficient. Just saying that education is being robbed of much needed money, doesn't necessarily provide a full picture.

There is an excellent chunk of research about how much schools spend and how it directly translates to better results. Most schools in most states have roughly the same type of margins for students. I'll use Blaine County (Sun Valley as an example) they absolutely throw money (the highest in idaho) about 14,000 per student. What does that translate to? Test results that are and do approach the state average. If you are interested in perusing the data: https://interactives.americanprogress.org/projects/edu-roi/2011/Main.swf

All the research says throwing money doesn't translate into better education. Needs to be spent wisely. Like all bureaucratic entities, schools aren't managed to spend money efficiently. Moreover schools rarely can show the type of proactive understanding of how to improve student learning and react using industry standardized methodologies to create better results. My former school district spent 50 to 100 grand over the past decade in sending teachers to conferences, bring in consultants. The result? The same results as before. You can spend all the money on teaching teachers, but the reality is that school districts who succeed understand their population base far more and tailor their services and focus their money in providing services that are going to bring results.

As for the state of Montana, the University of Montana and enrollment. The UofM is behind the times. You can hate on on-line education, but the fact of the matter why should it matter where you learn. There are obvious benefits to person-to-person relationships that are fostered by traditional campus settings. But if you are going to be hired by the same firm, business regardless if you attend a four year traditional school, or on on-line program that provides competency based education where you can complete the same work in half of the time, why wouldn't you choose the second? You can complete through WGU an education for elementary teachers in essentially 2.5 years, where the same college requirements at the UofM push over the 4 year average for teh same. The cost? About 15 grand for WGU. The cost for a comparative 4 year school in the region for the same? Pushing closer to 50 grand. If you use BSU or UI you are looking at 10 grand a year for that campus experience. The economic return is absurd. Most on-line programs hire rates are competitive or even exceed traditional 4- year schools.

Why pay for things you don't have to, because of what? Experience, culture, and a liberal arts education. Secondly, you choose on-line systems of education because they are competency focused, eliminate all the chaff, and focused on your major field.

That being said, I am of firm belief the UofM needs to find a clear direction forward. If it wants to remain a classic 4 year liberal arts school that wants to focus on broadening people's experience, then you are going to have to work incredibly hard to sell the culture and not the programs. Being a Humanities major, a social sciences major doesn't sell like it did once before. There isn't a big economic return, especially in field, for many liberal arts programs. That doesn't mean you should punt those programs an add in a bevy of revenue producing programs, but it does mean you are going to have to work to sell efficiency, experience and the quality of education. Because the UofM doesn't differentiate itself academically from its peers, or hasn't perceptively, and the status quo isn't working.

I think the blame can be placed in Engstrom's lap, not because he caused it, but rather he has been at least publicly very obtuse and slow to respond. Engstrom, at least anecdotally, is a fine man and does recognize the problems, but you have to begin to question if he or the regents have a long term plan. Montana as a school is way too important for the university admin, city and state to be so slow and ponderous and come up with so few rational responses to the issues. There are obviously better people out there than I to provide solutions, but this can't be sustainable for much longer as it is.

Griz-fan24 states: "As for the state of Montana, the University of Montana and enrollment. The UofM is behind the times. You can hate on on-line education, but the fact of the matter why should it matter where you learn. There are obvious benefits to person-to-person relationships that are fostered by traditional campus settings. But if you are going to be hired by the same firm, business regardless if you attend a four year traditional school, or on on-line program that provides competency based education where you can complete the same work in half of the time, why wouldn't you choose the second? You can complete through WGU an education for elementary teachers in essentially 2.5 years, where the same college requirements at the UofM push over the 4 year average for teh same. The cost? About 15 grand for WGU. The cost for a comparative 4 year school in the region for the same? Pushing closer to 50 grand. If you use BSU or UI you are looking at 10 grand a year for that campus experience. The economic return is absurd. Most on-line programs hire rates are competitive or even exceed traditional 4- year schools."

This is TOTAL B.S.! I don't know where you get your hiring figures. You are not even close, my friend. Forget about the comparative costs of on-line "degrees" versus campus education. I learned many years ago that you get what you pay for. Do you REALLY think that an individual getting an education degree online in 2.5 years learned anything about the realities of teaching kids? If you do, you are delusional.

I too got a dual degree in Education/Biology from UM, and the coursework in the education department was useless in preparing me to teach school. I taught and coached for 5 years, but learned how to teach under fire by actually doing it in the classroom. But, the interaction at UM with profs who had taught for years, as well as grad students getting their masters in education after teaching in the real world was invaluable.

As I said, I am still connected to many senior executives of large corporations, and they feel the same way as I do about hiring candidates with on-line degrees. In weighting the actual book learning significance of a college degree, versus the personal development significance, I weight the book part about 25%, and the personal development part 75%. You don't get the latter from an online degree. This is the nativity of individuals who think that companies only look at grade point averages when making hiring decisions.

I would hire a college grad with a 3.0 GPA, who had participated in several extra-curricular activities (sports, student government, charities, etc.) over a student with a 4.0 GPA with none of the other stuff.

 

[Atlanta Griz1]

When Montanans finally realize that education is the future for EVERYONE and tax themselves like the most productive states do, then UM will catch up to what it once was. That does not look like it will happen any time soon.

Oh, in productive states, you mean like California??? :lol: :thumb:

Right on, dude, let's all try to make Montana as "productive" as California!

 

[Atlanta Griz1]

Education is more expensive than it's ever been. Why would an 18 year old kid go to 4 more years of schooling, put themselves in high amounts of debt, and focus their studies on one particular field when we all know degrees don't get you well paying jobs. It doesn't take a genius to understand that we have to somewhat socialize our education system and invest in our kids. But this is 'Merica and we can't afford to send our kids to school because we have to make sure we have an f-15 plane for every citizen so we can bomb some towelheads

Most states have been de-socializing public university funding for the past forty years. California used to provide free education to in-state residents. What happened? As other services were continually increased, and state employee wages and pension plans shot past equivalent private pay and benefits, and as social services were continuously expanded, the money for education ran out. It was "socialization" that is the precise cause of the drying up of public funding for public universities. It is an interesting irony.

Of course, the natural solution? Student loans! Flood the system with free money (as far as the Universities were concerned). What happens when the money is free? University spending increased as a numerical multiple of inflation. Who paid the price? Both the students burdened with the loans, and the students trying to pay the full fare themselves.

It was the perfect generosity of federal funds to replace state funds going to expanded state government functions, that wrecked the financial rationality entirely and injured everyone involved, except of course those politicians who believe there is no problem that cannot be solved with "government money." I.e., "other people's."

You are considerably "off" on California, which, actually, ranks 7th in the nation now in all education spending with the Universities having increased spending averaging 1.7%. You generalize, of course, but Proposition 13, has changed everything in California when it comes to public funding. You are absolutely correct in seeing the relationship of "financial aid availability' and the rising costs. Universities raise their costs as the aide rises...it is a circle that must be broken somewhere. What bothers me is the number of private schools, like Stanford, with billions in endowments, and hundreds of millions in research grants, etc., that still actively raise funds, while the high schools that feed them are continuously fighting for more money. I get 3 publications each month from Stanford begging for money....greed is rampant today and no one wants to even discuss it on a level that might make a difference. I guess, it depends upon one's moral code or values. But, as the poster above said, it is somehow more important for this country to spend hundreds of billions for fighter planes and basically obsolete weaponry. As for UM, they would do well to go private and rid themselves of the straight jacket of the political crowd that makes up the Regent's. Alas, that won't happen. Mediocrity and less is on the horizon.

You just don't get it. The government could triple the amount of money it spends on education, and nothing would change. You libs think that throwing money at every social situation is the answer. If you did your homework, you would learn that the U.S. currently spends more money per student that almost every other developed nation. Yet, we lag behind terribly in reading skills, math, & science. Money is not the answer. The problems are fixed only by solving the problems of the broken family, and the valuing of education by the parents of kids.

 

[Atlanta Griz1]

I'll preface this by saying I am in education, and have an alternate point of view on the whole education finance issue for some time. I don't think schools need more money, they need to be more efficient. Just saying that education is being robbed of much needed money, doesn't necessarily provide a full picture.

There is an excellent chunk of research about how much schools spend and how it directly translates to better results. Most schools in most states have roughly the same type of margins for students. I'll use Blaine County (Sun Valley as an example) they absolutely throw money (the highest in idaho) about 14,000 per student. What does that translate to? Test results that are and do approach the state average. If you are interested in perusing the data: https://interactives.americanprogress.org/projects/edu-roi/2011/Main.swf

All the research says throwing money doesn't translate into better education. Needs to be spent wisely. Like all bureaucratic entities, schools aren't managed to spend money efficiently. Moreover schools rarely can show the type of proactive understanding of how to improve student learning and react using industry standardized methodologies to create better results. My former school district spent 50 to 100 grand over the past decade in sending teachers to conferences, bring in consultants. The result? The same results as before. You can spend all the money on teaching teachers, but the reality is that school districts who succeed understand their population base far more and tailor their services and focus their money in providing services that are going to bring results.

As for the state of Montana, the University of Montana and enrollment. The UofM is behind the times. You can hate on on-line education, but the fact of the matter why should it matter where you learn. There are obvious benefits to person-to-person relationships that are fostered by traditional campus settings. But if you are going to be hired by the same firm, business regardless if you attend a four year traditional school, or on on-line program that provides competency based education where you can complete the same work in half of the time, why wouldn't you choose the second? You can complete through WGU an education for elementary teachers in essentially 2.5 years, where the same college requirements at the UofM push over the 4 year average for teh same. The cost? About 15 grand for WGU. The cost for a comparative 4 year school in the region for the same? Pushing closer to 50 grand. If you use BSU or UI you are looking at 10 grand a year for that campus experience. The economic return is absurd. Most on-line programs hire rates are competitive or even exceed traditional 4- year schools.

Why pay for things you don't have to, because of what? Experience, culture, and a liberal arts education. Secondly, you choose on-line systems of education because they are competency focused, eliminate all the chaff, and focused on your major field.

That being said, I am of firm belief the UofM needs to find a clear direction forward. If it wants to remain a classic 4 year liberal arts school that wants to focus on broadening people's experience, then you are going to have to work incredibly hard to sell the culture and not the programs. Being a Humanities major, a social sciences major doesn't sell like it did once before. There isn't a big economic return, especially in field, for many liberal arts programs. That doesn't mean you should punt those programs an add in a bevy of revenue producing programs, but it does mean you are going to have to work to sell efficiency, experience and the quality of education. Because the UofM doesn't differentiate itself academically from its peers, or hasn't perceptively, and the status quo isn't working.

I think the blame can be placed in Engstrom's lap, not because he caused it, but rather he has been at least publicly very obtuse and slow to respond. Engstrom, at least anecdotally, is a fine man and does recognize the problems, but you have to begin to question if he or the regents have a long term plan. Montana as a school is way too important for the university admin, city and state to be so slow and ponderous and come up with so few rational responses to the issues. There are obviously better people out there than I to provide solutions, but this can't be sustainable for much longer as it is.

Griz-fan24 states: "As for the state of Montana, the University of Montana and enrollment. The UofM is behind the times. You can hate on on-line education, but the fact of the matter why should it matter where you learn. There are obvious benefits to person-to-person relationships that are fostered by traditional campus settings. But if you are going to be hired by the same firm, business regardless if you attend a four year traditional school, or on on-line program that provides competency based education where you can complete the same work in half of the time, why wouldn't you choose the second? You can complete through WGU an education for elementary teachers in essentially 2.5 years, where the same college requirements at the UofM push over the 4 year average for teh same. The cost? About 15 grand for WGU. The cost for a comparative 4 year school in the region for the same? Pushing closer to 50 grand. If you use BSU or UI you are looking at 10 grand a year for that campus experience. The economic return is absurd. Most on-line programs hire rates are competitive or even exceed traditional 4- year schools."





This is TOTAL B.S.! I don't know where you get your hiring figures. You are not even close, my friend. Forget about the comparative costs of on-line "degrees" versus campus education. I learned many years ago that you get what you pay for. Do you REALLY think that an individual getting an education degree online in 2.5 years learned anything about the realities of teaching kids? If you do, you are delusional.

I too got a dual degree in Education/Biology from UM, and the coursework in the education department was useless in preparing me to teach school. I taught and coached for 5 years, but learned how to teach under fire by actually doing it in the classroom. But, the interaction at UM with profs who had taught for years, as well as grad students getting their masters in education after teaching in the real world was invaluable.

As I said, I am still connected to many senior executives of large corporations, and they feel the same way as I do about hiring candidates with on-line degrees. In weighting the actual book learning significance of a college degree, versus the personal development significance, I weight the book part about 25%, and the personal development part 75%. You don't get the latter from an online degree. This is the nativity of individuals who think that companies only look at grade point averages when making hiring decisions.

I would hire a college grad with a 3.0 GPA, who had participated in extra-curricular activities (sports, student government, charities, etc.) over a student with a 4.0 GPA with none of the other stuff.

 

[billings_poke]

Online can never replace many STEM majors. You need access to expensive lab equipment and supplies.

However kids are spending less and less time on a campus. Dual enrollment and AP classes in High School are increasing as parents demand ways to decrease that college cost to maybe 3 years instead of 4. Online works for some classes and reduces the cost and time spent on campus even more.

Montana Will frankly, in my opinion, have to take a couple of its four year campuses to junior colleges to keep quality high in at its four year universities. We will have to find a way to cut tuition costs or the bleeding will continue. MSU degrees in engineering have a great hire rate and make student loans seem more tolerable as well with the higher starting salary.

It is a transition time in Higher education to be sure. I had two graduating seniors tell me yesterday they are going to Bozeman for an english degree as their parents are afraid of academic program cuts in Missoula. I was kind of surprised at the comment

 

[Spanky]

Poke....that comment doesn't suprise me. People read the paper and know the bad news at UM. In my view, it is criminal to give Engstrom a 500,000 bonus, however, if he would agree to quit, I would support giving him 1,000,000!

 

[PlayerRep]

le, Bozeman

UM is hurting itself more than anything MSU is doing.

I disagree on that. MSU has been light years ahead of UM in reaching out to high school students. They have been very aggressive with their Marketing.

You are correct, but it goes beyond marketing. The city of Bozeman has engaged in a high-tech development initiative which has brought many entrepreneurial people to that city, and many new high-paying jobs. In comparison, Missoula's city leaders have no clue, or, even worse, make it clear that they do not want new businesses locating to Missoula. To put it simply, the overall environment and cooperation by the city of Bozeman and MSU has made that city a destination for high-tech business. And, the MSU enrollment has benefited by this cooalition. In Missoula, both the city leaders and Engstrom have no freakin' clue how to compete on any level.

http://missoulian.com/news/local/mi...cle_a664a05e-7735-11e3-aa34-001a4bcf887a.html

Missoula and the Bitterroot have a good number of start-ups and tech companies, have for several decades, and have increasing numbers. Some of have come from or because of the university, but many haven't. The MEP (Missoula Economic Partnership has done a good job in the past 6 years, and MONTEC is better now that it is run by the university. Still, I'm curious about the methodology of the cited study. Missoula organizations and government are reasonably supportive of business and better than they were once were, but there are still way too many anti-business people and organizations. It can lead to a mixed message.

The great Bozeman area has way more start-up and tech companies, and has for multiple decades. MSU, certain of its programs, and the STEM programs were a big part of that. Sure, the city and others have been more welcoming to business and have been generally supportive, but government and local organizations are not the reason for Bozeman's big success. TechRanch was helpful for about 12-15 years, and that had university and federal support, and good leadership. There are several areas like photonics, which grew out of MSU programs and then became a quiet force of its own. This started more than 2 decades ago, maybe almost 3. At one time, there were about 20 companies in the optics space. Bozeman's success in the past 20 years has been led by successful and visible businesses like Right Now Tech and other companies, and entrepreneurs like Greg Gianforte. The high-paying jobs, wealth created from stock options for many individuals, the visibility and press, and now the many companies that former RightNow employers have started or are leading or have large roles in, is actually a large part of what's continuing to make the tech industry and job growth boom in the Bozeman area. RightNow is the leading example, but there are others. Bozeman is also a desirable place to live for many out-of-staters, who are now involved with tech and business in the area. This includes rich people and business people who have had large exits elsewhere, who have been attracted to the Big Sky and Yellowstone Club area.

I think I've heard a stat that something like 40% of the job growth in MT in a recent year has occurred in the Gallatin Valley. Don't know if that stat is accurate, tho. The incredible amount of construction going on in Bozeman, Big Sky, Moonlight Basin, Spanish Peaks, the YC, around Bozeman, to the west of Bozeman, is amazing in itself. I think something like 3,000 construction workers go thru the construction gate at the Yellowstone Club each work day. That stat may be off too. If someone has the right stats, please speak up.

UM could and should do better. The City of Missoula and its inhabitants could and should do better. However, Missoula's start-up and tech community is thriving. Bozeman's business, job and business community, with good support for MSU, seems to be doing extremely well. The recent large donation for increasing resources in computer science should pay huge dividends for MSU, the Bozeman area, and all of Montana.

 

[CV Griz Fan]

Not to say that I'm a huge supporter of the US News & World Report College Rankings but is any Montana resident worried that neither UM or MSU is ranked in the Top 200 National Universities any longer? 4 or 5 years ago both schools were ranked.....

 

[UMGriz75]

I think the blame can be placed in Engstrom's lap, not because he caused it, but rather he has been at least publicly very obtuse and slow to respond. Engstrom, at least anecdotally, is a fine man and does recognize the problems, but you have to begin to question if he or the regents have a long term plan.

Engstrom is a nice guy that is supremely unqualified for the job, and of course got it only because the other two finalists withdrew. He was the "default.'

His first months in office were too much of a challenge for him, and he frankly did just about everything wrong that an administrator could do, converting a college campus's usual problems with young people and rape -- a college campus with one-third the level of such problems as its sister school in Bozeman -- and converted it into a national scandal.

That took some doing. It was feckless effort on his part to appear open, transparent, forward-looking without the experience or good sense to know how these things can blow up and completely out of proportion, which it did. None of that had to happen. With his very public announcement of an outside study, very public firings, the passive response to the violent sexual assaults of the Saudi student, and the overly aggressive persecution of Jordan Johnson, all combined to become a national public spectacle, a spectacle created, in the largest part, by Royce Engstrom himself.

George Dennison made it look easy. "Build it and they will come," and they did. Dennison knew how to manage, he knew how to talk to people, he could carry out the largest capital campaign in school history, and student enrollment grew by 50% during his tenure, from 10,055 to 15,642 in his last year. It appeared as though MSU had finally fallen to a permanent second place.

And Dennison could recruit.

Part of the reason, too, that UM has seen higher enrollments is the result of more aggressive recruiting efforts.

For example, for the past several years, Dennison has written letters to high school freshmen in western Montana letting them know UM's college requirements and sharing with them his story of becoming a first-generation college graduate.

Interestingly, MSU is not growing by getting more Montana students. In 2006, MSU had 7,456 resident undergraduates and just 7,666 in 2015, and that was a decline from 7,842 (-2.4%) from 2014. Yes, Bozeman suffered a decline in that key demographic last year. But over the nine year period, has not really had substantial growth from resident undergrads.

UM had 6,809 resident undergraduates in 2006, which grew to 7,537 in 2011, and has now fallen to 5,970 (-15%). Bozeman isn't getting resident undergrads, but UM is certainly losing them.

The big difference is in non-resident undergrads. From 1,869 in 2006, these have grown by 91% to 3,591 at MSU. UM's has grown from 1,879 to 1,880. Yes, by one.

UM is still by far the larger Graduate Student institution; with substantially more students pursuing doctorate degrees.

The frustrating part is connecting any of these facts with anything that Main Hall is purportedly doing.