II. Developing A Model

"The trouble with our times is that the future is not what it used to be." -- Paul Valéry, French poet and philosopher

The only certainty in the future of the University is change. The number and types of students are changing; the needs of society are changing; the ways in which we receive and transmit information are changing. Strategic planning acknowledges the inevitability of change, but not the inevitability of the path. It is based on an article of faith: that we can shape our destiny. However, the University does not operate in a vacuum. We must determine our role with respect to the world around us.

William Massy in his environmental scan (see Appendix B) delineates six categories of universities: Research University, Classic Teaching Institution, New-Majority Teaching Institution, Information Technology Pioneer, Intellectual Property Entrepreneur and Service Entrepreneur. Each category reflects how universities have adapted to varying missions, environments, clientele, opportunities and goals. The variations consider the divergent demands that are placed on universities, and the responses that have evolved or have been chosen. Evolution, while a powerful force, is also slow, and the result may or may not be to our liking. We are able to make a choice, and by undertaking the strategic planning process, we have chosen to do so.

Massy's six general models describe universities as they exist today. No one of these pure models fits our vision for tomorrow, although parts of each model apply. From the Research University model we choose research excellence; from the Classic Teaching Institution model, quality undergraduate education; from the Service Entrepreneur model, service; from the New-Majority Teaching model, the importance of non-traditional students and distance learning; from the Information Technology Pioneer model, the use of new teaching technologies; and from the Intellectual Property Entrepreneur model, the importance of applied research and other practical activities.

Following all six models, some of which have competing interests, would be folly. If we are to be "the outstanding university in the nation," as set forth in our vision statement, we need to lead, not follow. We need to make our own template, based on our values, our strengths, our opportunities, our responsibilities, our experience and our vision of the future. To make a template that will work, we also need to consider the internal and external factors that constrain our choice.

There are three fundamental demands on the university. First, there is the responsibility to provide strong undergraduate and graduate educational programs. Second, there is the historic land grant mission, with its implications for service and practical education. And, third, there is the research function that, together with the land-grant mission, distinguishes the University from other state institutions of higher education.

In the models elucidated by Massy, these demands are viewed as competing: A university must choose between research excellence and excellence in undergraduate education, for example. In the University of Connecticut Model (see Section II. C, pg. 8) we see these demands as complementary. Our challenge is to find the optimal mix of teaching, research and service so that excellence in one area enhances the others. It is this interaction of roles that gives the University its distinctive position in Connecticut public higher education.

The University cannot be all things to all people. It cannot excel in all areas of research, or offer all fields of study, or participate in all aspects of social endeavor. But it can excel in chosen areas of research, and offer top-quality undergraduate and graduate education in a significant range of fields, and make a valuable contribution to society in those areas in which it has expertise. Careful strategic decision making can allow us to grow in a manner that best suits our goals, the needs of the state, and our inevitable environmental and financial constraints.

The University cannot will itself to be richer, more centrally located, or in better physical repair. It cannot compel more valedictori ans to apply for admission, or more research grants to be available, or more employers to have jobs for our graduates. But it can position itself to deal effectively with external factors such as these, to work for change when change is appropriate, and to create an internal environment that is flexible and responsive to a continuously changing world.

A. National Environmental Issues

Massy identified seven factors, summarized below, that affect higher education nationally:

Enrollment Changes: The typical student is no longer the 18-year-old, high school graduate embarking on four years of full-time study. Non-traditional students are the "new majority." They are students who do not go to college directly after high school, or who attend school part-time, or who take more than a year off from their studies, or who are over age 25.

A new focus on education for jobs: Economic conditions have caused students to emphasize vocational concerns. They want not only a quality education, but a quality education that will help them to get a good job.

A revolution in information technology: Rapid advances in information technology offer opportunities to improve productivity, expand the "campus" through distance learning and redefine libraries. Many schools are making substantial investments in infrastructure to take advantage of these opportunities.

Emphasis on value for money: Universities have been forced to examine their cost effectiveness due to increasing demands on public money, which are not likely to abate, and rising tuition, both of which demand justification.

"Privatization" and performance-based funding : Governments seek assurances of quality, relevance and efficiency before committing limited funds to public universities. In some cases, this has resulted in "privatization," a significant increase in dependence on tuition and other institutionally-generated funds. In other cases, this has resulted in performance-based resource allocation, in which funds are awarded based on the measured quality, relevance and quantity of teaching and research. "The conventional wisdom that academic quality must be taken on faith and that better quality always costs more is no longer viable: there is simply too much concern that students are paying more and getting less .... and that the higher education bill is crowding out important public and private spending alternatives," according to Massy.

Diversity of interests: There are many groups that hold a stake in a university: students, faculty members, administrators, governing boards, alumni, state officials, the media and the public. The needs, desires, concerns and core values of stakeholders can differ dramatically. These groups are often at odds concerning what needs to be done and how.

Administrative changes: When a university faces financial difficulties, the first step is usually attempting to increase revenue. If this is not successful, across-the-board budget cuts follow. If further action is needed, there are two common approaches: eliminate some administrative, support and/or academic programs to cut costs; institute a broad-based strategy to enhance productivity through management practices such as continuous quality improvement (CQI) and business process re-engineering (BPR). In some cases, these broad, across-the-board changes are necessary for survival.

B. Local Environmental Issues

In addition to the national issues, the Strategic Planning Management Committee has identified issues facing the University of Connecticut specifically. These issues have been developed based on Massy's report, a study completed by Robert Dickeson and Gary Quehl in February 1994, subcommittee deliberations and interviews, public hearings, and more than 200 letters and reports from faculty, students, administrators, alumni, legislators, committees, organizations and the public:

Access to state funding: Increased state funding cannot be relied upon in the near future unless there is a clear partnership relationship with the state, in which the University is seen as a resource for state development, delivering increased value for increased dollars spent. Increased funding also demands that the roles of the various components of the state's higher education system be clearly defined to optimize each institution's contribution. In an era of competing demands for limited resources, higher education institutions in the state, like those nationally, must prove their worth and their efficiency.

Changing student population: The University will have to compete aggressively with other institutions within the state and those outside the state to attract and retain a student body of the quality, size, and distribution it desires. We must meet the changing demands of students and examine our role for non-traditiona l students, who are becoming an increasingly large component of our student population. Distance learning may be of particular importance to this group, who are often older students balancing part-time study with the demands of families and jobs.

Demographics and global dependence: Connecticut is a culturally diverse society closely linked to the global society and economy. We must provide opportunities for students from diverse backgrounds, making a special attempt to reach students who are members of socially or economically disadvantaged groups. We must prepare students for participation in a global society. UConn must respond through its recruitment of students, faculty and staff and through curricular change.

Geographic influences: The University's New England location puts it in direct competition with a number of prestigious private schools that are attractive to many students in this relatively affluent state. UConn must build on its unique characteristics if it is to compete effectively for the best students and faculty.

Physical condition: The condition of many of its teaching, living and research facilities puts UConn at a competitive disadvantage.

Funded research: Due to the limited availability of public funds, the importance of externally funded research will continue to grow. It must be nurtured and expanded. Support for research programs not only encourages external funding, it also raises the aspirations of students and faculty, making the University more attractive to top candidates and more competitive.

Fundraising and alumni giving: The University has an opportunity to increase significantly external fundraising and alumni giving. Both areas show clear potential for growth. UConn's long-term ability to increase donations is tied directly to its prestige as indicated by the success of its graduates, the competitiveness of its academic and athletic programs, and its perceived value.

Faculty quality: The University is fortunate to have a well-credentialed faculty, many of whom are nationally recognized. Most faculty members are committed to scholarship as it pertains to teaching and research and value interaction with students. The University must ensure that the faculty and graduate assistants recognize the need for excellence in teaching and have the flexibility to adapt to the changing needs of their students.

Student quality: UConn has maintained a relatively strong student body during times of increased competition. The University cannot lose sight of its goal to attract aggressively the best students and increase the quality of the student body overall.

Distinctive role: The presence of the Community Technical College and Connecticut State University systems and private universities in the state must be recognized in defining the range of options the University exercises. We must adjust our offerings to adapt to the specific needs of the state.

Administrative structure: Currently the University does not have a structure that allows it to effectively adapt to changing conditions. The University's administrative structure, policies and procedures should clearly identify responsibility and authority, reporting lines and coordination mechanisms.

C. The University of Connecticut Model: An Involved Community of Learners

Based on the University's vision statement, Massy's models, and national and local environmental issues, the Strategic Planning Management Committee has developed a model for the University.

This model reduces barriers between undergraduates, graduate students, faculty members and staff, and between research, teaching and service. It acknowledges what the best faculty members, students and administrators have known all along: that learning takes many forms, and it can be shared in many ways.

In the University of Connecticut Model, undergraduate education is enhanced by excellence in research. Research and teaching are equally valued and inextricably entwined, with faculty members valued not only for their creativity in the laboratory or studio, but also for their ability to inspire undergraduates and graduate students in the classroom. This model values research and scholarship not only for their contribution to knowledge and to society, but also for their contribution to the educational fabric of the University.

Students, in turn, are encouraged to excel not only in what they learn but also in how they apply that knowledge, whether in research, artistic endeavors, social action or career-related pursuits. They are not recipients of an education but participants in a collaborative educational process led by first-rate faculty members who are recognized for their teaching, research and outreach contributions.

We envision a university that serves students, local communities, the state, the nation, and the international community in many ways, including research, artistic expression, civic service and economic development. We see these functions as being integral to our unique role in the state and to our primary role of providing an outstanding education to undergraduate and graduate students.

Our University of Connecticut Model has the following characteristics:

The process of learning, both in and out of the classroom, is collegial, with full participation of students, faculty and staff.

Research, scholarship and debate are important objectives. They serve the learning process through mutual discovery and the expansion and application of knowledge in new ways.

Undergraduates are able to explore a broad range of subjects and to focus their education in a range of classical, contemporary and professional disciplines.

Graduate students are able to explore a focused range of subjects in traditional, interdisciplinary and professional disciplines.

Diversity of ideas is nurtured and valued. Academic freedom is viewed as integral to the free flow of ideas.

The University's role as a link between the state and the rest of the global community is emphasized.

Service functions are extensions of the learning-community concept. Service enhances the learning experience of students and the intellectual growth of faculty. It also expands the University community, sharing our intellectual resources with others and inviting them to join us in the learning experience.

The University is responsive to the changing composition of its community. As the numbers of non-traditional students increase, the University will address their needs by providing excellent teaching and an adequate number of classes at appropriate times, some of which may utilize distance learning techniques.

The University welcomes technological change and explores the opportunities that it presents for increased quality and productivit y in scholarship, teaching, outreach and administration.

Accountability is critical at each level of University functioning. Goals are clear and measurable. Individuals, departments and larger administrative units have a task orientation, with an aim of getting tasks accomplished efficiently and cooperatively. Productivity and creative problem solving are encouraged and rewarded.

The University respects the process of shared governance.

The University fosters a sense of pride in its accomplishments.

Resource allocation in all areas is consistent with the University's goals, adjusted according to productivity.

Teaching, research and service goals are tailored to maximize present strengths and build future areas of excellence while minimizing bureaucratic constraints.

In all areas of endeavor, the University embraces multiculturalism, as defined by its Multicultural Advisory Committee:

"Multiculturalism speaks to the issues of human diversity, cultural pluralism, human rights, social justice and alternative life choices for all people. It encompasses environmental (social climate), curricular/instructional and administrative initiatives designed to help students, faculty and staff avail themselves of the many models, alternatives and opportunities that may originate from the full spectrum of cultures. The term is not a euphemism for racial, ethnic, religious or social discrimination, but a humanistic concept emphasizing the value of human diversity in all its manifestations. Furthermore, it conveys the necessity of developing and preserving an atmosphere in which human diversity will be recognized, respected and nurtured."