<p>Go back to the article, scroll to the bottom and read the comments at the bottom.</p>
<p>It seems like there is a divide from the comments between the faculty at Clemson over the top 20 initiative. Some are 100% behind the plan, others are skeptical and angry at President Barker’s actions.</p>
<p>Some snipets from 4 different commenters:</p>
<p>"# Posted by Martine LaBerge, Ph.D., F.B.S.E. , Professor and Chair of Bioengineering at Clemson University on June 3, 2009 at 4:00pm EDT
The information presented in this article was extracted from an Institutional Research Conference. The facts stated should have been verified before publication. Additionally, what has been printed and what Catherine Watt said are irrelevant to facts and have little to do with research.
Catherine Watt said that Clemson is only concerned with attaining a high score from US News. Yet, everyday she has to walk beside the construction site of our new Bioengineering Building. It is a $12M investment. Yet, it has nothing to do with US News rankings.
Clemson’s administration has worked diligently in the past 10 years to achieve the recognition Clemson University deserves. It provides an utmost environment for integrating knowledge and preparing our students to fulfill outstanding careers. It provides the highest level of creative thinking, learning, and innovation. And, we are very proud of that. Attaining a high magazine ranking is something that all universities in the United States seek. However, facts are checked by US News
Since President Barker has taken office, we are more focused and as a result we have better students, our faculty salary and benefits are more competitive, our classes are smaller, our graduation and retention rates are better and our research expenditures are higher. These accomplishments clearly have not been mentioned by Catherine, or perhaps, omitted in this article.
As a department chair, I take part in the US News survey and rank other bioengineering departments. I rank other programs based entirely on my knowledge of them. I know my colleagues do the same. We are professionals and would never do anything else. "</p>
<p>“Ms. Watt, the faculty at Clemson owe you a big thanks for having the courage to present the facts about Clemson and its obsession with gaming the US News rankings. Millions of dollars have been squandered in this meaningless effort. During the past 10 years faculty and staff have watched the quality of education decrease. Good faculty left in disgust, science labs are woefully outdated, and “Smart classrooms” are anything but. But millions were directed to flashy brochures about Clemson, new branding techniques, and to academic success activities for students with high SAT scores to increase retention and graduation rates only to improve rankings. Many of us are also aware that inaccurate data was submitted to US News. Most of the faculty are sick of hearing President Barker’s litany that we are # 22 in US News and # 8 in this and #10th in that. We know that the “hard” data like the amount of federal research dollars, number scholarly articles cited, and major academic awards for faculty and students have not changed. Now we are in the midst of an economic crisis and major budget cuts to the university and as another person commented the University is in a free fall. It is so sad that so much time, money and effort was wasted on the equivalent of winning the swim suit competition in a beauty contest.”</p>
<p>“My name is John Ballato and I had the great honor and privilege to serve the Clemson University faculty for 3 years as the Faculty Representative to the Board of Trustees. During my term, which ended this past December, I participated in many very frank and open discussions with faculty, staff, and administration, including closed Trustee retreats, about strategies and tactics.
My first comment in response to this article is to make abundantly clear that Ms. Watt is not the voice of the faculty, staff, or students at Clemson. At best, she (and the un-named “Truth At Last” author) represent a vocal minority, but a minority none-the-less.
Secondly, and unlike the other Clemson employees contributing to this dialog, being a first-hand participant as a representative of the faculty in institutional strategic planning I can say without reservation that the focus was always on quality - quality of faculty, staff, students, and facilities - that has driven Clemson’s efforts. Clemson’s growth in US News rankings is a result of the hard decisions that have been made on where resources should be invested and not a result of chasing a US News number. Anyone who thinks Clemson’s focus is not on the students and faculty are out of touch. It needs to be kept in mind that we live in a State that is not committed to higher education and the state institutions have seen a disproportional cut in funding. Furloughs, deferred hiring, reduced travel are unfortunate but necessary evils when many of our sister schools around the country are laying off faculty. Times are tough but there is no better job than a tenured faculty member where one has the luxury to spend time putting down the very institution that is working hard to keep them in a job.
Thirdly, during this Top-20 period, Clemson’s SAT scores have grown greatly, sponsored research awards have tripled, we have more spin-off companies creating higher wage jobs than ever before and we are more focused on our mission rather than deviating from it to pursue a number.”
Along this lines, it is worth noting that, as a Professor, I also have been the largest generator of research funds at Clemson over the past 6 years at least, among the top in scholarly output (publications and citations), have spun out a successful company, all while teaching my classes and graduating students. I see considerably better students now than we did 10 years ago and Clemson’s investment in our programs are growing, not declining; another clear indication that resources are being targeted towards where the greatest productivity lies. For those more disgruntled, I suspect that it is because productivity does not warrant investment.
Lastly, I am amazed that Inside Higher Ed and the Chronicle of Higher Education would write an article using purely anecdotal accusations without permitting the administration time (more than a late Tuesday night email for a Wednesday AM article) to respond in kind or contacting faculty, staff, or student representatives for their comments. This level of journalism is more expected from the likes of People Magazine or the National Inquirer. </p>
<p>“To the fierce defenders of CU, recruited through an email message that went out to faculty earlier in the day, your attempts to shame the reporters of legitimate concerns show your true colors, or lack thereof. You and your ilk are fostering the insidious, retaliatory culture that presently exists at the university. Your attempts to squelch debate are quintessential CU.”</p>