Nanocollege to split from UAlbany ?

[Clickclack]

Still to this day no one has explained how this would even benefit CNSE...why is this move necessary has not been explained. It's being done in the dead of night....decision has been reached and we are just now being notified...

 

There is no political push to not allow this to happen either since the CD would continue to reap the benefits of CNSE so no politician is going to stick his neck out there and question this move. Long term, this will do irreparable harm to UA...we sacrificed much in the way of funding that should have gone to UA to build that thing up only to have it ripped from us when it became the huge success that it has become. While other SUNY centers are working to build a comprehensive University we are neutered every step of the way.

 

I know we've all discussed this before but it's hard not to feel the disappointment and pain of this move and what it means for UA.

[uofalbany]

Two UA reps both voted in favor of this split...I guess we'll have to see how this benefits UA...I just can't help but feel saddened that this was ripped away from us...our research output as a "research" University moving forward will be neglegable and whatever chance we had to get an AAU invite will be non-existent moving forward.

Yep. That's one thing that bothers me. I thought that the nano would help push the university toward the law and medical schools as well.. but ... Maybe if Kermit didn't die, and continued his leadership, who knows. At this point, screw off nano, I don't think you did much for the university, other than siphoning millions upon millions of dollars away from the rest of the university.

[B9j2j6s]

Two UA reps both voted in favor of this split...I guess we'll have to see how this benefits UA...I just can't help but feel saddened that this was ripped away from us...our research output as a "research" University moving forward will be neglegable and whatever chance we had to get an AAU invite will be non-existent moving forward.

Yep. That's one thing that bothers me. I thought that the nano would help push the university toward the law and medical schools as well.. but ... Maybe if Kermit didn't die, and continued his leadership, who knows. At this point, screw off nano, I don't think you did much for the university, other than siphoning millions upon millions of dollars away from the rest of the university.

 

That is perhaps the most logical reason why University officials agreed to this seperation.

[madDOG]

Let's be honest here people, what has the Nano College done for UA in these areas?

 

US News rankings: Little to no improvement over the past decade and we're still trailing our SUNY brethren.

AAU accreditation: Despite the massive investment in Nano over the past decade we still don't have AAU accreditation.

Endowment: Still severely trailing our SUNY peers despite all the patents accrued by Nano over the past decade.

Academic funding: We've had to cut several liberal-arts programs, our student/teacher ratio isn't so great and we're begging the state for a massive influx of cash for campus improvements. Billions flow into Nano for their complexes.

Overall awareness of UA by top students all over the country: Students who are interested in Nano are finding their way here obviously but in New York... Bing, SBU and Buffalo continue to attract higher quality undergraduate students on the whole. In the region... Rutgers, UConn, Penn State, and UMass are all way ahead of us.

 

Bottom line is that Nano hasn't benefited UA as much as you think, at least in the areas that matter most. It's more symbolic than anything. Either it hasn't been leveraged properly, or it was just never set-up to impact the university as a whole. My guess is the leaders who signed of on this recommendation believed that this was true, or else they would have fought to keep it.

 

The sky isn't falling. We have RNA, we have Business, we have Social Sciences. We will continue to do what we do with or without Nano.

Edited July 15, 2013 by madDOG

[Jammaster]

Very well said, MadDog!

[Clickclack]

You can watch the divorce proceedings here...

 

http://new.livestream.com/vvt/BOTJuly2013

[Clickclack]

Listening to the presentation...apparently the biggest impetus for this is to give Nano flexibility to build a bolts-nuts reach across the entire state with satellite campuses in various parts of the state. Apparently this autonomy was not possible if the two were linked moving forward.

[Clickclack]

Still zero on what this will do for UA...all the focus is on how great this is for CNSE...

[Clickclack]

One of the trustees voices his frustration and states that he will vote against this...I didn't catch a name. Another trustee is now slamming the quality of the report...

 

Wow...didn't catch the name of the trustee but he's slamming the premise of splitting CNSE and why...not convinced it needs to be separate from UA. Believes UA and CNSE should leverage each others strength's...speaks to growing CNSE within UA.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Clickclack

[Clickclack]

He's carrying on at length slamming duplication of services and administration etc.

[Clickclack]

References a letter from Jones...makes a mention of promises made to Pres. Jones...not sure what that means...again comes back to shared services.

 

Makes a mention of of several others board members sharing his thoughts etc.

[Clickclack]

Speaks about giving CNSE president more power then any other campus presidents...*takes a shot at Keylorose sp?*...slams the report as to much group think.

[Clickclack]

Discusses the prospect of mediation as this clearly is not a happy marriage between CNSE and UA...how do we build two up together instead of splitting...

[Clickclack]

References back to 2004 where this all began with CNSE trying to split...with various resolutions and gaining autonomy from UA etc. Makes a references to CNSE continuing to move from under control of the SUNY board...to a point where the ultimate goal is NOT to be a part of SUNY.

 

WOW...damn!

Edited July 16, 2013 by Clickclack

[Clickclack]

Recommends deferring the vote on this resolution until a more in-depth report with input from outside experts can be prepared...another trustee is speaking now and is echoing a lot of what the previous gentlemen mentioned.