This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
There's not plot here, of course: as University Center Dean Mark Lee (a Lake Herman neighbor, by the way!) says his institution is simply responding to market demand:
"We are very sensitive to demand, and we extend classes to try to meet demand," he said. "Our model must be student- and market-driven. ... There is no initiative, per se, to expand into the day other than to meet demand. We measure demand through monitoring enrollments and student surveys" [Terry Woster, "University Center to Offer Day Courses," that Sioux Falls paper, 2008.07.03].
... and we all know that everything can be justified in the name of satisfying market demand.
Woster reports that Board of Regents President Harvey Jewett says that "adding daytime courses is a natural development" (Woster's words). See? The Regents aren't scheming to create a full-fledged Sioux Falls public university campus. It's just happening, all on its own, with no one to blame. It's just as natural small towns emptying out as folks move to Sioux Falls for more job options.
I would like to think a seventh university campus could be a win-win situation for all of South Dakota: more well-trained workers in Sioux Falls, good programs maintained elsewhere. That Sioux Falls paper sees no threat to the other campuses.
But we already have six perfectly good public university campuses in South Dakota, more per capita than any other state in the Union... more, some legislators argue, than we really need. If University Center continues its drive toward de facto university status, it is going to draw more resources away from our existing campuses, especially from Madison, Brookings, and Vermillion. Continued mission creep at SDPURC seems more likely a recipe for a nasty legislative fight and, ultimately, another boost for Sioux Falls at the expense of its neighbors.
Sioux Falls won't stop growing if University Center is limited to its original mission, as a place for working people to pick up a class or two in their spare time. Legislators like Messrs. Tidemann, Apa, and Maher are right to be vigilant in holding the Regents to the mission they originally promised for the Sioux Falls campus.
Seventh university? It's a satellite campus and other states do it. I believe it will not be a seventh university due to the fact that, 1 - There is not a sports team. 2 - no campus sponsored activities. 3 - it is against the law to have any new degrees, programs, etc. replicated across the state universities. And I stress "NEW" because yes, I know 4 universities have a computer science program. 4 - no housing. 5. The state legislature will not allow it.
ReplyDeleteCory:
ReplyDeleteWhere are the students who need education? Sioux Falls. That's where the demand is. Many of these students have families and jobs. They are not looking for a "college" experience. Education is a key to our state's economic future. The University Center is an excellent solution to a presssing need in our state. To force non-traditional students to the state's universities is just stupid and anti-education.
Todd Epp
SD Watch http://www.southdakotawatch.net
Who told you that SD has more public universities per capita than any state in the nation? Check again - North Dakota has fewer people but TEN public universities.
ReplyDeleteI agree that times are achanging and population is also. Maybe we have too many universities, but I don't necessarily think so given how spread out our population is, other than Sioux Falls. And I think that students should be given the opportunity if they want to get a degree from an accredited state university than from one of the questionable ones that are springing up willy nilly in Sioux Falls.
ReplyDeleteGiven that, I would strongly oppose any type of extracurriculars, i.e. sports and all the expense that entails. for this campus. The students going there simply want an education; if they want more, they are free to go to one of the other universities across the state. Keep it simply academic, and I don't have a real problem with it.
Nonnie
Todd:
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with you that demand should automatically dictate public policy. From a state building prospective, it is to our advantage to focus on multiple city centers rather than one metropolis. Establishing a university in SF would dramatically cut into enrollments at USD/SDSU and would most likely kill them over time which would in turn cause grave economic hardships for brookings/vermillion.
However; in this case, I do believe it makes sense to establish a more formal university. These are public, state funded, universities. The residents of SF are most likely providing a disproportionately large amount of the operating revenue for these universities and are seeing a very limited benefit.
It makes sense to establish it as a self sufficient university that is completely funded by student funds. If there is a large enough demand in SF, the campus will flourish and the other state run universities will not see a whithering budget.
As long as it is set up to bring in new students as opposed to siphon off from SDSU/USD I see no foul here.
Also, as a "technology" worker here in SD, education is the abolute last hurdle that we face. We produce 100x more educated students than the state can possibly support currently. Limited corporate incentives, a horrible tax system, and the good old boy network here are greater barriers to economic development than education. We are a net exporter of knowledge workers, not an importer.
Please tell me why the largest city in South Dakota should be prohibited from having its own full-fledged state university. The old story about how SF got the pen in the 1800's doesn't cut it any more.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's time for an (GASP) unified university system that eliminates duplication and delivers programs where they are needed the most...in Sioux Falls.
I don't want Dakota State or any other state school to close, but with dwindling tax receipt and more hands out than money to give, something might be changing.
Tony:
ReplyDeleteWait. I thought it was good for government to respond to need. Isn't that why we have government? What if the highway can't handle all the traffic between two cities? We should tell drivers to not go to those cities or to go way out of their way rather than build a new highway? That's what not having some sort of state university program(s) in Sioux Falls amounts to.
Traditional "college aged" students are dwindling. But the rest of us need and are going to need continuing education for our fields, to change fields, and to attract all those "good" jobs we keep dreaming about.
I don't want to see NSU, DSU, or BHSU go out of business. And I think they have now been positioned for particular higher educational roles. We need more higher ed, not less. But Sioux Falls, and more importantly, citizens and taxpayers in Sioux Falls, shouldn't be held back because we think they'll suddenly decide to attend classes in Madison or Vermillion.
Obviously, Sioux Falls is an "education" rich environment, with two thriving private religious colleges, several proprietary colleges, the University Center, and other colleges offering programs.
Education is a growth industry. And the state needs to play a role in helping its citizens in its largest metro area get the education they need.
I have attended two universities that cater to "non-traditional" students--Washburn University of Topeka and the University of Houston. Those public institutions are vital to their communities' economic, social, and cultural development. Why should Sioux Falls or Rapid City for that matter be any different?
Todd Epp
SD Watch http://www.southdakotawatch.net
Buy all means we should grow up and have one state university system. We could cut administration in half, with good management, by 60%. It's senseless to have duplicate administration 50 miles apart from Madison-Brookings and Spearfish-Rapid City. It's also senseless that the University hasn't moved from Vermillion to Sioux Falls. No one questions that the medical school's home is Sioux Falls. There is far more business, media, government, law, etc., in Sioux Falls than past-its-prime Vermillion. Time to move it all into the 21st century.
ReplyDeleteTodd:
ReplyDeleteAs I stated, I'm not opposed to a more formal university. I'd just like to delineate its form from the existing university system. If a more traditional university is established in SF it will lead to the eventual closing of the other universities in the area.
So, as a compromise, a completely self funded university makes sense. Its self funding will automatically raise its tuition prices above the other SD public universities. Traditional students will most likely choose to go to the existing universities because of the lower fees. Nontraditional students in SF will be able to have access to the classes that they desire. The key is that the nontrads in SF will be NEW students to the university system that would otherwise not become further educated. Bring in new students as opposed to siphoning off from the old.
Anonymous said:
ReplyDelete"Buy all means we should grow up and have one state university system. We could cut administration in half, with good management, by 60%. It's senseless to have duplicate administration 50 miles apart from Madison-Brookings and Spearfish-Rapid City. It's also senseless that the University hasn't moved from Vermillion to Sioux Falls. No one questions that the medical school's home is Sioux Falls. There is far more business, media, government, law, etc., in Sioux Falls than past-its-prime Vermillion. Time to move it all into the 21st century."
As an individual working at a public university in SD, this sounds like a nightmare to me. Anytime I have to work with the administration outside of my school, I automatically tack on 6 weeks to whatever task I'm working on completing.
The only saving grace we have is a fair bit of autonomy. Take that away and watch everything come to a grinding halt.
Every top down program (purchasing, scheduling, etc.) that I have to deal with from the state is a complete train wreck. They penny pinch, poorly administrate, and overbook so much that it's almost impossible to work with the state.
I think an integrated state university system is the right approach. It's not that we have too many locations for higher education, it's that we have too many fiefdoms in higher education.
ReplyDeleteCalifornia, Minnesota and Texas have different systems for different educational goals and tasks.
California's Universities are apparently the higher end of the food chain. The Cal State's are a notch below.
Texas has the UT system, the UH system, and the TAMU system. Each serve specific needs.
So, if you don't like a unitary SD System, how about a University/USD system and a State/SDSU system, and divide up the other colleges by mission to fit the system? Hell, let the schools keep their names (no USD/Madison) but get rid of some deans and VPs, hire more professors, spend more on research, fix the leaky roofs, etc.?
Todd Epp
SD Watch http://www.southdakotawatch.net