re: Is F King next on the chopping block?

quote:

---

The metric should not be maintaining retention and graduation numbers, though. The metric should be retention and graduation numbers on par with aspirational peers.

---

I hear you on this, too. My sense is that there has been some improvement over time in terms of retention and graduation rates. A long way to go, for sure. That the new admissions policy hasn't caused a noticeable drop, though, does suggest that there's some opportunity to make this work.

At the end of the day, the state's largest land grant and most-loved university is always going to deal with some seemingly competing but not irreconcilable goals, two of which I believe we have identified in this thread: (1) generating new knowledge through high quality research that goes hand-in-hand with research dollars and graduate education and (2) providing access to a high-quality undergraduate education for the state's residents. I think we can champion those two goals in ways that invite investment from the state, from donors, and from grant makers. The current discourse around the admissions policies totally misses any of these important points.

Even the tip-top tiered Power 5 institutions are emphasizing access (e.g., Michigan, Northwestern). Or maybe these institutions needed to be exclusive first, raise a ton of money, and then try to open things back up. That seems to be a route you're advocating for (even though it's almost impossible to replicate a Michigan or Northwestern trajectory)? Am I understanding you correctly? Or have I misrepresented your vision for how to improve LSU's standings?

I imagine there are some schools ( ASU, maybe?)that are trying to do more for access while not sacrificing other aspects of their missions. Looking at the ASU, UM, and NU materials, though, it seems like the structures and systems put in place for access outpace any of the details provided by LSU.

As I reflect on our back and forth, I do recognize that there seems to be very little leadership focused on hiring solid and superstar faculty to revive much of what the Jindal years snuffed out. And the poorly named capital campaign lacks quite a bit of detail about investment needs. I've only looked through the website and watched a couple of the campaign videos...but there's zero detail or case being made about what specific investments are needed. The campaign pillars themes that the individual pillar pages on the site don't explore more fully. The goals laid out on the site aren't granular enough; the pages don't provide a roadmap or an argument for what success/growth would look like. Compare the LSU campaign site to Penn's.

Finally, to sum up some of my sentiments that may not have been clear in my other posts...I'm certainly not convinced that FKA has the vision and leadership skills to put LSU on a trajectory that achieves any of the goals we've laid out in our posts.