- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Is F King next on the chopping block?
Posted on 4/22/19 at 10:09 am to CasualBystander
Posted on 4/22/19 at 10:09 am to CasualBystander
So, your position is that (1) messaging has shifted from excellence to access and, I may be putting words in your mouth so please do push back, (2) access is incommensurate with excellence? I'm not convinced access and excellence are inherently at odds. Further, is access nefarious? Please do elaborate. I feel like there's more under the surface to your argument against access.
Honestly, LSU can't release headlines for competing at the national level (except for a few programs, which have historically been strengths of the university). That wasn't the case at the time of the release of the Flagship Agenda (created during my time at LSU as a student and at a time when LSU was finally being named a Tier 1 institution by US News, in part because the cut off line moved, I think). And it hasn't been the case with O'Keefe or Martin or Alexander since. The University isn't undoing the Flagship Agenda from the inside.
What has changed in this time? State funding for LSU under Jindal. That has been a cataclysmic shift that affects both excellence and access. This is what we should ALL be railing against.
At the end of the day, admitting a few students at the lower end of the standardized test score scale who have shown in other ways that they can be successful at LSU isn't undermining excellence. If the retention and graduation numbers hold up, then we should be celebrating this as the right move.
Honestly, LSU can't release headlines for competing at the national level (except for a few programs, which have historically been strengths of the university). That wasn't the case at the time of the release of the Flagship Agenda (created during my time at LSU as a student and at a time when LSU was finally being named a Tier 1 institution by US News, in part because the cut off line moved, I think). And it hasn't been the case with O'Keefe or Martin or Alexander since. The University isn't undoing the Flagship Agenda from the inside.
What has changed in this time? State funding for LSU under Jindal. That has been a cataclysmic shift that affects both excellence and access. This is what we should ALL be railing against.
At the end of the day, admitting a few students at the lower end of the standardized test score scale who have shown in other ways that they can be successful at LSU isn't undermining excellence. If the retention and graduation numbers hold up, then we should be celebrating this as the right move.
This post was edited on 4/22/19 at 2:17 pm
2
Posted on 4/22/19 at 10:31 am to johnfredlsu
I agree with most of this post, and certainly the sentiment.
The access mission, properly executed, requires resources to build needed support structures. I believe those resources would be better spent on research and graduate study. Louisiana has a graduated tier of admissions reflective of the prevalence of the access component in each institution's mission. In a resource-constrained environment, it is easy to lose focus. The Jindal-era disinvestment certainly contributed to what I consider to be mission creep. The Flagship Agenda was the right mission; we just never stepped up as a state and funded it.
If the students who are at the lower end of the quantifiable measures of preparedness but truly demonstrate preparedness in other ways succeed, that is something to celebrate. The metric should not be maintaining retention and graduation numbers, though. The metric should be retention and graduation numbers on par with aspirational peers.
The access mission, properly executed, requires resources to build needed support structures. I believe those resources would be better spent on research and graduate study. Louisiana has a graduated tier of admissions reflective of the prevalence of the access component in each institution's mission. In a resource-constrained environment, it is easy to lose focus. The Jindal-era disinvestment certainly contributed to what I consider to be mission creep. The Flagship Agenda was the right mission; we just never stepped up as a state and funded it.
If the students who are at the lower end of the quantifiable measures of preparedness but truly demonstrate preparedness in other ways succeed, that is something to celebrate. The metric should not be maintaining retention and graduation numbers, though. The metric should be retention and graduation numbers on par with aspirational peers.
Posted on 4/22/19 at 10:39 am to johnfredlsu
Jindal truly hurt LSU.
But it hasn't stopped. A significant contingent of state legislators, especially in the House have continued the Jindal Jihad against higher education in this state, long after his departure.
They, too, need to go.
But it hasn't stopped. A significant contingent of state legislators, especially in the House have continued the Jindal Jihad against higher education in this state, long after his departure.
They, too, need to go.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News