Regents ponder categories

By MEG CADY
UNIVERSITY JOURNAL

The Utah Board of Regents’ proposed system of categorizing Utah’s higher education institutions by their mission statements and roles is being discussed by all levels of SUU administration.
Provost Abe Harraf said the proposal is just a beginning point and the Regents are reviewing mission statements to see where each institution belongs. He said the mission statement gives the institution a direction in terms of degree programs and activities.
Harraf said the Regents are trying to create a system of categories similar to that of the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education.
Information on the Web site Carnegiefoundation.org, says the Carnegie Classification system “is the leading typology of American colleges and universities. It is the framework in which institutional diversity in U.S. higher education is commonly described.”
Harraf said the categories will be a guideline to help ensure there are less duplications and confusion of roles in Utah’s higher education system. It will also help reduce the cost to taxpayers.
David J. Grant, member of the Board of Regents and Cedar City resident, said the committee for mission statements and roles is creating a classification system to make sure taxpayer funds are being used in the best manner.
Grant said not only the purpose of a category system but the purpose of mission statements is to make sure there is a good distribution of opportunities over several locations.
For example, Grant said the Board would rather have seven good programs distributed between Utah’s institutions instead of 10 mediocre programs.
Grant said in light of budget cuts, institutions can decide what programs to enhance or eliminate based on their role and mission statement. Grant said all colleges and universities in Utah already have a mission statement, which is an “interesting, dynamic process.”
Anne Judd, member of the Board of Trustees, said another reason for the category system is to prevent “upward creep.”
She said every school want to expand its role, but there are limited resources. She said for example that every junior college aspires to become a four-year college, and every four-year college looks to becoming a university.
Judd said institutions will know where they fit into the education system if there are defined roles.
Grant said education is not a free market system like business because some students are location bound or hindered by their credentials. He said the Regents are serving as “border regulators” who let institutions define themselves while making sure Utah schools are geographically balanced and resources are optimally distributed.
“There’s regulatory issues that affect where people go to school,” Grant said.

Under the proposal, institutions will be grouped by their definitions. For now, SUU is grouped with Weber State University.
Harraf said WSU and SUU are similar in a broad sense because both schools offer associate, baccalaureate and some masters programs. He said the schools are different because SUU focuses more on the bachelor programs and WSU focuses on associate programs. Also, SUU is mostly a residential university, whereas WSU is mostly a commuter school.
Judd said the Trustees have briefly discussed the proposal during the last two meetings. In the Dec. 5 edition of the University Journal, Marc Dotson reported the Trustees discussed whether or not to request that a subcategory be created in the type two classification, which will allow SUU a more specific place in the education system.
Harraf said the Faculty Senate will probably be discussing the proposal at its meeting on Thursday. President Steven D. Bennion said other campus leaders such as student government will also discuss the proposal.
Judd said it is too early to know how this will affect SUU. She said that a lot has to be decided by the Regents. She said the Trustees may be ready to take a vote at their next scheduled meeting at the end of the month.
Bennion said there are pros and cons to the proposal. He saidit has been beneficial in the past to be linked to Weber, although he said he doesn’t see SUU becoming identical to the Ogden school. He said some SUU students need the programs at Weber because SUU may lack the funding for particular facets.
Bennion said the proposal doesn’t allow SUU its uniqueness. He said he is anxious to hear from people before he can create an official proposal for the Trustees.
Bennion said he doesn’t think there will be a dramatic change whether or not SUU stays grouped with Weber or not. He said there might be a slight change in SUU’s emphasis.
Grant said he can see funding following mission statements in the future.
“For some it’s bad news, for others it’s good,” Grant said. “It depends on what programs are where.”
He said the category system will help institutions to collaborate on programs if necessary, allowing resources to be used to the fullest and roles to be fulfilled.
Grant said he thinks it is under debate simply because it might bring change. He said it is essential to keep programs vibrant and continuous.
Harraf said there will be little to no impact either way. He said funding will not be affected; the subcategory would simply give SUU a more descriptive mission.
“This doesn’t change anything except that it gives you a much more precise, perhaps, or accurate, picture of what the institution is all about,” Harraf said. “I don’t know whether it will affect students’ decisions (about school).”
Harraf said he would personally like to see a more focused role and mission statement. He said there could be a problem, however, if it goes too specific and boxes the university in.
Harraf said he will collect the opinions of the Faculty Senate and Deans’ Council before he takes a proposal about SUU’s mission statement to the president’s council. Then that council will make a decision and Bennion will take an official proposal to the Board of Trustees.