|
|
 |
Opportunities and Challenges
Now I would like to shift our discussion to speak about opportunities and challenges.
How we respond to them now will determine our course for the next decade. We
have great opportunities to be certain. But as many of you know the Chinese character
for opportunity is the same as the one for crisis. The interpretation of the
character depends on context. In fact I want to speak about context, the context
we set for our strategic plan.
Our overall goal is to create a great, world-class university with affordable access. We know what to do and we are doing it with the resources we have. So why aren't we given the resources we need to complete the job? An additional $100 million in annual operating funds would about do it. It is a lot of money, to be certain. But the amount is reasonable. When our state funding guideline was put into place eight years ago, it predicted that our annual operating budget was under-funded by about $100 million. Our under-funding1 for 2006 is $113 million according to the state's guideline. Another way of looking at it is that we receive $3,900 per FTE student less than the state guideline recommends. Shortfalls in space and in facility renovation funds are other areas of significant deficiencies that I am not going into here.
For FY09 the state has projected a structural budget deficit of $1.5 billion. A structural deficit equals the difference between the projected revenues and expenditures. Consequently, we should expect the state to eliminate this deficit by increasing tax revenues and cutting state expenditures. Cuts in state expenditures will likely affect us, and possibly significantly. At the same time the state has formed the "Commission
to Develop the Maryland Model for Funding of Higher Education." The Maryland Model is intended to eliminate the roller coaster of state support for higher education. I am appointed to this Commission. It's a work in progress over the next year.
I am always the optimist, and I do hope for the best. But hope is not a strategy. And a strategy is what we need right now. After years of unsuccessful, though incessant efforts to bring in resources from our state and System to build a great university, I have concluded that for the foreseeable future we will not be given what we need for this job. Albert Einstein defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." If he hadn't been dead for over 50 years, I would suspect that he's been watching me. Moping about this reality does no good and only diverts our focus from considering positive strategies that can move us forward. It also makes us weary and pleases some others, two annoying additional outcomes.
So it comes down to this. If we are committed to building the great, world-class university, we will have to take on the responsibility ourselves and do it with the resources we have or can raise ourselves. While we must continue to press our case for resources, we must look at our responsibility quite differently. We must expect more from ourselves, including higher standards of achievement, a culture of continuous advancement and a rejection of mediocrity. We must also count less on help from others. We should plan on providing the resources for our greatest needs ourselves—and needing what we can provide.
Our perspective on this context is foundational for our strategic planning process.
The responsibility we accept will set the context for our plan. We have been
working on this plan for more than a year. The deans and vice presidents culled
strategic issues at two retreats. A year ago I asked the Senate and the campus
to propose big, transformational ideas. The Middle States re-accreditation process
led to recommendations for us too. The initial spade work has been completed.
Provost Farvardin is chairing the planning committee that will create the plan.
The plan will come to closure by the end of the academic year. I hope that you
will provide input to the planning committee and subcommittees so that the true
sense of our community is reflected in the aspirations it presents.
But our plan and our future depend on how we address the context question. Are
we willing to take the leadership and responsibility needed to continue our ascension
as a world-class university? A plan of incremental changes will not lift us much
higher. Will we demand of ourselves a spirit of boldness, adventure and high
self-expectation that requires us to assume greater responsibility for our future
with the resources we have and can garner? Boldness in initiative, personal commitment
and a sense of urgency are necessary if we seek high impact outcomes. We cannot
lead by taking invisible steps. We cannot lead by following—or by waiting
for help to arrive—or by praying for a miracle. We may have done too much
of those things already. If we remain committed to building a world-class university,
I see no alternative to taking charge of our destiny with all its responsibilities
and commitments. And when I refer to us, I include our campus foundation board
and our alumni association as well. We can count on them.
So my first recommendation is that the context for our strategic plan be one of boldness, adventure and high self-expectation and that we create this plan with the explicit understanding that we will deliver the agenda ourselves without reliance on resources that we cannot provide or raise.
Additionally originality matters—action matters—and leadership matters for
any plan that will inspire us. We must unleash the power of our people—inspire
our creativity and merit our commitment to new initiatives that will lift the
university's impact higher. We will have to identify leadership among our people.
Our campus people will back an inspiring plan where their work is appreciated
and where they are an integral partner in university achievements.
My second recommendation is that this plan should stretch, prod and challenge us to take on new initiatives with high potential impacts. We should adopt nothing less. We should be critical of "more of the same" proposals.
My third recommendation is that the plan should address six issues that I believe are essential to our strategic commitment. They are, in no particular order:
1. The national competitiveness of our faculty is fundamental to a world-class university. We must commit to it in every way.
2. Teaching, its efficiency and success, and our commitments to teaching across the campus should be explicit.
3. Sustainability and the environment require our commitment.
4. Student success, access, diversity, inclusiveness and debt at graduation
must be explicit in the plan. Diversity without inclusiveness is of limited value.
5. Financing and focusing of resources are needed to support strategic initiatives and create momentum.
6. Resource expenditures should be combed for high value impacts. Key questions on expenditures should include:
- Are we spending our resources most effectively?
- How should we recover resources for reallocation?
- Where should we invest both new and recovered resources?
During the retreats last year the deans and vice presidents backed four initiatives they believed were necessary to advance our world-class stature. We have outlined them before so I will only mention them here. They are:
1. We must develop a top-class graduate program experience.
2. Our locale must be transformed into a value-added magnet for the university, including the East Campus and Research Park developments and enhancing transportation and the environment.
3. The international vision of the university must extend beyond study abroad. The range of learning opportunities includes research in foreign universities and corporate laboratories, study tours and research expeditions, projects like those of Engineers Without Borders, internships, and many others. And recruiting international students and scholars to Maryland is also essential.
4. Finally, we must identify the knowledge, capabilities and preparation that will describe every University
of Maryland graduate in 2015. From there we can prepare the new CORE experience
to achieve those goals.
1Maryland Higher Education Commission presentation to the Commission to Develop the Maryland Model for Funding of Higher Education, 2007
|
|
