Question #2
What do you believe have been the most significant disappointments and/or errors of omission?
Thematic analysis (organized into 9 themes) of the written responses to Question # 2 on the disappointments and/or errors of omission in the strategic planning process from the Strategic Planning Retreat, August 17, 2004.
Download a printable version of the responses to question #2
Focus needs to be on academic programs, quality of instruction, preparedness of students, colleges and other units.
- Academic area hasn't received due share of resources – relatively greater % of resources on support areas.
- Limited adjustments in curriculum and gen ed.
- What is our optimal size in terms of enrollment? We tout growth to 11,000 as good. But is more better? I am not sure growth is good by itself.
- My understanding is that we have gotten worse over the past few years in terms of quality of entering freshmen. The slides we saw at the start of our day suggest we are improving. Which is correct?? I am confused.
- We apparently do not have an outcome such as “every graduate will be desirable to hire.” Correspondingly, our academic rigor seems to have low priority. This seems like a glaring problem to me.
-Poor quality student body despite improvement/efforts.
- Again, not having been involved in the process, I can't comment on any specific things. However, I was surprised that there were not more goals related to the quality and success of the University's graduates. Maybe that's assumed, but I would think that would be the most important measure of horizontal distinctiveness.
- No emphasis on basic requirements for offering a good education. E.g. class sizes at the freshman/sophomore level continue to increase. This prevents instructors from emphasizing writing and critical thinking skills …the importance of this has been reflected in senior student exit surveys.
- Increasing operating budgets for departments that are technology-based e.g. sciences.
- I think the belief that a bigger student population is better isn't a good idea. Larger class sizes will reduce the quality of education due to less interaction amongst students and faculty.
- Greater interest in quantity rather than quality.
- Little adherence to plan – new stadium, women's center never mentioned, smaller classes was originally a goal of great importance.
- Student preparation has worsened because we refuse to be selective in admissions. Gains at top are destroyed by lack of quality at bottom of student pool.
- More online course options.
- State of the art computer technology.
- Getting the strategic plans down to the department level so that they are operationalized
- More buy in by the deans and department chairs, i.e. making the plans a part of each unit's agendas.
- No mention of maintaining, let alone improving, instructional quality.
- Irrelevant to faculty and departments.
- EIS??? Seems to be missing from the report. I know a lot has been done in advising that should be in report. But I think the other areas have been left off the process and initiatives completely – library, computing, media services, etc.
- Not looking at how departments might be better aligned in the colleges.
- Not sure of your marketing techniques to draw/increase quality student enrollment.
- Education goals need to be focused on as well.
- Omission: Provide greater staff training opportunities to increase their value to supporting faculty and students.
- I think that just increasing the number of students admitted to the university is not a good way of increasing the quality of what we do. The average ACT scores of our students are some the lowest in the UW System. Even increasing the number of students in the top 10% and 25% of h.s. classes still has us lower than for example, UWEC and UWSP. This is a way of playing with numbers that is misleading.
- The College of Nursing 's teaching shortage and lack of qualified, effective teachers needs to be addressed. In addition, elimination of nurse externships should not be used in an effort to improve Board scores—as clinical hands-on experience, actually enhances and improves earning and knowledge retention!
- Perhaps some lack of clarity regarding the role of units outside the academic colleges in achieving strategic directions.
- Teaching shortages and academic needs should be addressed before building a $21 million Sports Complex. *Remember the priorities of a university: EDUCATION; sports is extracurricular, a secondary priority.
- Implementation of Earth Charter principles into curriculum and governance.
- (Too little personal knowledge to thoroughly answer this question)
- Here's my attempt :
- Colleges still appear to operate in a “silo” mentality.
- Not enough emphasis placed on building the colleges into a cohesive group.
- The Center for Career Development doesn't appear anywhere in the documentation for the plan while bringing millions of dollars to the University. Because CCDET no longer resides in a college, but rather within administration, there's no clear understanding of its place in the plan.
- Gruenhagen Conference Center is not mentioned in the plan in terms of it being a conference center for Oshkosh or the university. What are the plans for it?
- Capitalize on “independent alignment”—done by each college—identify and develop collaborative opportunities
Budgetary support (or lack thereof)/ priorities
- Inability to get adequate support from Regents and legislators.
- How are we supporting basic teaching and learning in existing classes with keeping class size low and having the resources to teach? (budget cuts have increased this problem)
- So difficult to recruit and hire faculty when outside salaries are so high! Must support CON programs with $.
- Much more effort needs to be made in external fund raising to support our diverse students and bring faculty up to national salary averages.
- It really annoys me that we have seen so much put into buildings while faculty salaries have not been raised. What good are buildings when you are losing quality educators because of poor pay? What a serious omission! Titan Stadium (sad face here). Should have been put into faculty salaries!!
- Lack of funding has affected what we can accomplish (or the speed of those accomplishments).
- Lack of resources.
- Erosion of support for traditional grad programs.
- Decreased resources for colleges and departments, and thus programs.
- Budget constraints.
- One thing has been how the projects have stalled due to budget problems and other economic problems.
- Lack of prioritization for budgets, resource/staff allocations, external fund raising.
- Developing the “outreach” part of our mission. Adding to the “action priorities and set of outreach priorities.
- Developing specific strategies for outreach with an investment of human/financial resources.
- Budget concerns etc, have caused some apathy – challenging.
- COBA' vertical distinctiveness would be enhanced with a new facility.
- Economic problems within the state of Wisconsin caused even greater resource constraints. Priority projects were limited.
- Faculty salaries – we may have a good looking student union, a new business college building (next biennium) but we need relief from the rising health insurance and decreasing salaries. This has not been addressed in any creative fashion. The faculty is the heart and soul and life blood of an academic institution and need to be supported “concretely.”
- Retaining liberal arts focus, emphasis on general education, given the base of securing funding from private for profit sector and not from public agencies and private non-profits.
- I am resentful of the “you can pat yourself on the back for all the hard work in times of crisis” attitude. Let's take care of ourselves and each other better.
- Getting more enrollment is good. Keeping enrollment is great : need to provide the monetary support to do so. I am making my own way through college and find it more and more difficult.
- Some priorities have gotten a good start, but funding has held further progress (i.e., Environmental Studies Major).
- Even though many great activities will be happening, tuition has been used to supplement areas where complete funding was not available.
- Student Financials needs to be run more accurately and more effectively to better serve students and the university.
- Staffing problems: many key areas are understaffed and many staff members do not work efficiently and are allowed to continue doing so, creating LTE positions and great, needless expenditures.
- The well is constantly dry—even after record-breaking year at Foundation, we were still in the RED.
- BRAIN DRAIN issues, our AEC kids leave the State after graduation.
- Lack of understanding of and support for programs that generate revenue. Such programs are encouraged (necessitated) by budget cuts but sometimes distrusted by faculty
- Lack of finances make change difficult.
- Need resources for outreach leadership and development of non-academic (or academic-related) outreach to community at large because many of these initiatives are not funded by tuition-generated revenue.
- Some facilities take backseat to current initiatives, the tennis courts—removal for the opportunity for closer parking is a glaring example.
- It is sad that we completely ignore the nonacademic non-facilities aspects of college life. Why do we not talk about student services, i.e., counseling, career, advising, intramurals. And why do we not talk about residence life or Reeve Union and the things they provide as being distinct or needing more work. The things we offer other than our excellent education can be and is what makes this institution special.
- Education should come before a $21 million sports complex.
Communication/appreciation between campus and local community could be better
-Again – the lack of progress in improving student perceptions – it hurt us in recruitment and I have to believe it damages fundraising efforts. Our students (and faculty and staff) should be more proud of their experience and accomplishments at UW Oshkosh. Why aren't they?
- Lack of community understanding and appreciation for the efforts of NEW ERA.
- Lack of student motivation.
- I believe faculty and staff still question the reputation of the campus and quality of students. Although looking at the major successes of the past few years have strengthened respect and progress some feel we still battle with reputation, etc.
- I believe we need to work more with the city to improve our relationship with the community and show the benefits we provide the community.
- Our ideas of a living, learning, serving community are a step in that direction.
- Provide quality beneficial results of our work and ideas to continue the city/community cooperation.
- Stressing the different levels of collaboration in the community -- collaborations and partnerships with United Way and Social Service agencies, etc.
- Expand on our commitment to grants and contracting in Outreach – who is in charge of outreach?
- Attracting employees in all functions – internal to apply, pride in working here.
- Need to bring the community to campus – do all citizens feel like this is their campus?
- Better use of our own expertise in students, faculty, departments, colleges etc. to provide services and products for the university and the community – a more hands-on learning model i.e. computer science students develop web sites, etc. for real people and places.
- Same w/business students.
- From a student perspective, I feel that one of the biggest challenges is creating awareness among the student body of these new and developing opportunities UWO is creating. I feel that if students were more aware of what our campus has to offer, they would be even more successful throughout their career as a student and have a chance to see what opportunities are out there.
- We have not yet met our potential for finding a place in the hearts and minds of the public (and hence, money giving legislative). We need a more active and even militant stance.
- Issues of communication.
- Facilities plan good when explained, but I stood confused as to the point of rerouting traffic for “pedestrian friendly campus.” Doesn't make much sense when there are fine sidewalks and enough to let others through. When you combine Radford area developments with traffic rerouting (more inclusive picture) it makes sense. This “inclusive” picture never explained in USRH, Hall Govn't or student newspaper— my (and many others) main source of campus information.
- Need to do better job of informing students. I just recently discovered the online “Bulletin” for UW Oshkosh. So many of the articles here are not well reported in student newspaper. Maybe the two need to work together? It will help establish student pride in UW Oshkosh.
- Student/general population knowledge of the plan.
- Reconnecting with alumni; instilling pride in current students.
- Not responding to external markets.
- We are still “location bound”. Our competitors are growing and moving into our geographical area and we are still “just here”. The articulation and 2+2 programs help, but are not adequate. We should be offering far more educational opportunities on-line and at multiple locations. I think we should have a strong presence in Appleton , Sheboygan-Manitowoc and West Bend and perhaps a min-presence in New London , Berlin and Waupun.
Reward structure/ recruitment/ compensation need to be aligned with University's mission
- Few rewards for activities on behalf of reform.
- Lack of examination of how the tenured/promotion system aligns with the University mission. If our primary mission is to serve people and engage students in learning and service – a reward structure focused on research is not aligned.
- I don't see any discussion of considering fundamental change in tenure systems and other organizational structures unique to universities that might limit operational flexibility. Is the University community too isolated from the realities the rest of society faces? (budget constraints/required changed?)
- Recruitment – compensation.
- I don't see major changes at the department level particularly – and I think this applies to most departments (in L&S, at least) – in the way things are done. I have seen few changes in the reward structure in L&S that would encourage faculty to think in the context of “horizontal” distinctiveness.
- Lack of focus on financial rewards to being educators – salaries are not at all competitive with opportunities outside campus. Hard to attract and retain top-notch educational faculty with new ideas and experiences from the business world
- “Time to tenure” process is a barrier to attracting top-notch staff with experience and expertise beyond the traditional education track – i.e. lip service to “scholarship” and “service” but no appreciation/recognition for these 2 elements in relation to placement on tenure track.
- Lack of salary increases is big disappointment.
- Reduction of health benefits and increase in cost.
- Lack of attention to reward structure for faculty and staff – more work, less pay off.
- Not changing to a valid instrument to evaluate faculty that would encourage change and also have undergraduate students providing feedback in areas they are really qualified to answer.
- Not providing more encouragement in the development of partnerships and service harming opportunities
- Faculty buy-in is low – most only marginally aware. This strategic plan needs to intersect with their professional priority of teaching and research.
- Money for colleges travel, etc.
- Tangible rewards for all faculty/department community service programs.
- Obtaining input from individuals who have not been involved in mission planning process. (Many, especially those working toward tenure, cannot invest _____discuss or not rewarded for university level service prior to receiving tenure)
- Not finding fairness for non-tenure-track faculty and investing their ideas and energy (not overseeing their performance)
- Better transparency, clarity in expectations of non-tenured faculty in personnel decisions. (University wide requirement for processes to communicate renewal/tenure expectations.
- We always seem unwilling to truly take on the big issues that seem to keep us rooted in archaic, traditional views of the university—for example, the entire TARPS process, departmental organization, reallocation from small programs, etc.
Need to assess cost/benefit of individual degree programs, course offerings, articulation agreements and strategic action initiatives
- A more critical assessment of the cost/benefit of individual degree programs and course offerings.
- Not certain we are where we should be in terms of assessing students.
- The collaborative tech/UW-Osh programs (aviation, early childhood, and the like – much like the AODA certification of a few years back) do not seem to be generating the students one might expect.
- Foresight into how these goals can be successfully accomplished. CON accelerated nursing and collaborative programs, funding for a multitude of simultaneous endeavors.
- Some of the action priorities are not clear to me as fitting our goals – esp. collaborative aviation program and competitive manufacturing through technology.
- Are we spreading ourselves too thin and tackling too many projects?
- More distinctiveness in COLS majors/programs. We have some majors that have 4-5 students in them. Let's bring in/create some “new” areas of study – let's move with the demand.
- Development of programs of little interest to faculty and little need, marine management, fireman training.
- Previous view of assessing outcomes – not from what students expect and want from university education.
- The promotion of collaboration with UW Stout and survey/needs assessment of N.E.W. manufacturers with little “concrete” programs in place.
- Higher ed will need to make major changes – General ed provided in community colleges closer to home and __________into night classes similar to folk college in Europe . – the University would then deal with majors, minors and credential programs.
- Lack of defined steps for initiatives to differentiate short-term goals from long-germ goals.
- Equal credit given to “little” victories and major successes – need review (external review) on reported successes.
- One major should hold its own weight. Environmental Studies (if we revere four-year programs). I've been encouraged to take more than required within my major—good, but shouldn't be necessary—especially when we are giving credit to a reduced credit load for graduation. Reduced credits shouldn't mean reduced job availability after graduation.
Resistance to change/ slow pace of change
- Action items from early planning sessions not pursued.
- Resistance by some stakeholders to any change.
- Time consumed on dead ends.
- Slow pace of improvement.
- Not enough collaboration between the UARC and faculty advising – although this is a culture change, and is slow going.
- The delay on the purchases of Axletech is rather disappointing. Acquiring and renovating it would increase the attractiveness of the campus.
- Implementation phases not always inclusive at the same level as planning.
- Another disappointment is the delays of some aspects of the overall plan.
- Slow process and problems with wellness center.
- Lack of progress on arts management initiative.
- Green Campus – all seems to be things the University does – how about individuals? Encourage recycling. Have containers outside, provide more inside. Send info about what can be recycled (i.e. can we recycle all paper products that the city does or only office paper?) Encourage turning off lights. Make motion-detecting lights easily available to anyone who wants them for an office, lab, hall, etc. Make bins available to people for free so we can put them everywhere.
- Not sure there has been a “buy in” by the people in the trenches or the willingness to break down barriers of “this is how it has always been done and always will be.”
- Still have not been able to break down barrier between colleges and support service. Each must still protect “turf.”
- Difficulty for people to accept/work through change.
- Still have a way to go in making the University visually attractive.
- Perhaps there was a desire for facilities improvement to move even faster – although progress always must overcome inertia before it gains momentum.
- Silo mentality will attack others' success
- Still have a number of non-believers who pooh-pooh the process, thereby making it more difficult to the buy-in needed for complete success.
- Disappointments and errors of omission…
- In spite of the “team work” envisioned by the process there is still a very strong “turf protection and annexation” mentality by the larger toward the smaller. Partnership does not mean abolishing or absorbing others. The “process” built hopes that perhaps the mentality would no longer be permitted to operate.
- There is still a perception and even a reality that change is a long difficult process. It is so strong that it has a chilling effect on innovation, creativity and productivity.
Participation of faculty, staff and students in planning process could improve
- Some loss of history regarding where University has come from. Many older faculty and staff have mentally and physically left “U” as a result of no sense of appreciation.
- The process seems to alienate many of the faculty.
- Focus on the use of existing resources – retired faculty.
- More open sharing of the budget and budget priorities to allow community input into the setting of those priorities.
- Faculty has not been involved in the process for the most part.
- Often the results/summaries look nothing like the content of the session.
- We have moved too far in the direction of non-academic individuals dictating/directing academic decisions.
- Difficult to comment on progress since I was not involved in initial strategic planning and not familiar with what was developed. I suggest distributing strategic planning materials to all new employees.
- I believe that while students have been included, more opinions need to be heard.
- Not allowing enough space in plans for brand new ideas
- Wish for an even greater sense of community and individual responsibility in the process. (greater buy in)
- Academic affairs vs. student affairs – why do they have to be separate when they have the same goal.
- Many people are unaware of the whole planning process.
- Disappointments: Strategic objectives have not been clearly communicated to members of the university community, excepting those actually involved in the strategic planning process.
- Staff compact: Why is there one just for faculty? What about the rest of us? It's like we aren't important or don't matter.
- I believe that the University should try to get the students more involved in the strategic plan process. I personally knew nothing about it until my department chair suggested I attend the event.
- Representatives from student organizations on campus should be made more involved in the planning process.
- There is a disconnect between administration and faculty (of course) but such a process could have provided more opportunity for connection than it did. (e. g. Chancellor visiting scheduled department meetings to hear and share priorities as opposed to short notice of “open forums” that conflict with teaching and other scheduled duties for a majority of faculty)
- Lack of broader ownership of governing ideas. Esp. with campus constituencies (faculty and students)
- No sense of unity/community achieved.
- Defining for faculty what engagement/collaboration/partnerships means to them. What should they do different? How can they help?
- We need a campus wide discussion.
- Also, I don't understand the process that produced the “strategic action initiatives.” What faculty involvement was present, for example, in the defining of the “collaboration aviation program”?
- How serious are we about including faculty and students. If you have a retreat in August when students and faculty are on break (don't forget everyone else on vacation whenever.
- Lack of faculty and instructional academic staff participation especially untenured faculty and academic staff who teach most of our courses in gen ed.
- Internal campus: “They must come to us.”
- Little of what faculty want:
- Smaller classes.
- Sufficient up-to-date classrooms of the appropriate sizes.
- Competitive faculty salaries so not necessary to spend so much time trying to obtain better paying jobs elsewhere.
- More tenure-track and tenured faculty and fewer academic staff.
- Unyielding defense of tenure against direct and indirect attacks.
- Real as contrasted with sham, shared governance.
- More prepared and brighter students
- Still unable to identify or answer the question “What is UW Oshkosh known for?” –too vanilla yet!
Need more/have too much diversity
- Not enough support for our diverse students in terms of tuition and other financial assistance and remedial help.
- If we can give a “free ride” to the top students why not give a free ride to the students who really need it. Many of our diverse students are trying to work full time, support a family while trying to do college work with minimal math, reading and writing skills.
- While steps in the right direction have been taken, I believe that there have also been regressions. I think that while the diversity has been expanded in regards to race or ethnicity, it may have regressed in terms of economic diversity.
- More interest in numbers and diversity of students, more in quality of graduates.
- Addressing the issues of the changing student population entering higher education today. (classes, structure, learning styles, etc.)
- Need more scholarship opportunities – especially for studying beyond lst degree.
- Need more involvement of non-traditional students in govn't/plan.
- Allocation of space for personnel to work with non-traditional students in a visible way.
- Lack of support for scheduling courses beyond traditional day classes. (shorter than 14 weeks p.m.)
- Retention of minority (black students).
- Male dominance in governance—good ol' boy system. 70% female students, yet adult leadership roles are all men.
- Lack of gender diversity in upper administration.
- Deans – all male, Chancellor, Provost all male. Women in leadership are relegated to peripheral/support roles.
- Ambiguity regarding the place of service to nontraditional students. We have identified lifelong learners and outreach as important in our strategic directions. However, support for development of programs to serve nontraditional student, availability of faculty to teach at nontraditional times are sometimes barriers.
- Not everything on the rather exhaustive list can be covered and awareness for some initiatives is nil. Plan 2008 has very little public knowledge, few have heard of it.
- By focusing tightly on a few issues that are known, we ignore issues that pop up in the present.
Other:
- An increase of 6% in enrollment is not significant in my opinion.
- Sometimes not “walking the talk.”
- I have not had any significant disappointments.
- Instances where lip service has obliterated an unspoken, albeit opposing reality.
- At previous retreats, some sense of certain agenda items having a preconceived priority status w/other ideas not as enthusiastically championed, despite considerable interest among attendees
- Adoption of Earth Charter not in Power Point. Has this been forgotten?
- Approval process has a severe chilling affect.
- Staff orientation including full campus facilities(?)—make sure employees “know” the campus and its resources.
- Why not include Gruenhagen in plans for facility development? Promote for conference and meeting use by staff—needs renovation to be considered—could be profit center.
- Not committing to building rec/wellness center to LEED silver principles, thereby losing out (passing by) on much needed planning grants (Knesge)