comments that fall outside the purview of the concerns expressed herein in response to the plan.
1. A major concern of the division is the lack of any mention at all of building an endowment to allow the university to withstand hard times that may occur in the future. The number of high school graduates in the state is declining and the very nature of education is likely to change significantly in the near future as computing technology fosters major innovations in the delivery of education to students. An endowment is necessary to give the university the capital to implement needed changes to meet future demands.
2. The strategic plan offers no real vision for the future. It consists mainly of several tactical maneuvers to be applied in the short term but doesn’t really look ahead to the changing educational landscape, with increased emphasis on distance learning and the competition from for-profit institutions. There is no mention of any new educational initiatives. Thus there is no actual strategy in the strategic plan.
3. In addition to their normal duties of teaching, grading, advising, and university service, RU faculty are facing increasing demands on their time as new duties, such as assessment and the incorporation of the EU into a unified campus, come into being. The strategic plan as presented offers no plan to benchmark UIU RU faculty responsibilities by comparing them to faculty responsibilities at comparable institutions. In fact, the plan offers no support for faculty at all. The Seamless Movement and the Curriculum Subcommittee reports include $0 in support of faculty personnel for implementation of their suggested initiatives.
4. The plan presents a tremendous disparity in requests for resource allocations. Plans for a new student center, a data center, and improvements to the athletics facilities are outlined in detail with projected costs in the millions of dollars, but no money at all is included to support new or existing faculty positions. In fact, the faculty as a whole is generally ignored in the strategic plan.
5. Nowhere in the plan is there any form of a cost/benefit analysis to gauge the financial impact of implementing the suggested proposals. The plan offers no projected return on investment for any of the proposed capital outlays. There is no integration of future university financial projections into the feasibility of any of the proposals delineated.
6. The plan does not describe any clear pathway by which the responses of each strategic plan team are contributing to the overall goals and mission of the university. It is unclear how any of this will promote global citizenship.
7. The plan as presented is lacking an investigation of how the very nature of education itself will change in the next twenty to thirty years and a strategy the university can use to position itself to meet these changes.
Division of Science and Mathematics