Subject: Peer Institution Review Committee
To: iifs@lists.uoregon.edu
Cc: "Keele, Ruth" Ruth_Keele@ous.edu, "Turner, Bob" Bob_Turner@ous.edu,
From: "Peter B Gilkey" (gilkey@uoregon.edu)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 13:09:09 -0800

Dear fellow IFS Senators.

Here is my report on the Peer Institution Review Committee Meeting. It is, obviously, not normative or binding on OUS.

The peer institution review committee met Thursday 31 January 2008 from 0930 until 1145. IR (Institutional Research) members from all the 7 campuses were either present in person or attended electronically. A number of OUS representatives were present. And I also attended as the faculty representative -- I transmitted to OUS the information I had gotten from the IFS representatives of some of the various campuses and it was graciously received..

The meeting was run by Ruth Keele and Bob Turner of OUS. After a brief welcom and introduction, the institutional attributes for defining peers were discussed. One major outcome was that the "funding from the state" in its various permutations was to be an output variable rather than an input variable -- we needed to be able to compare ourselves to other institutions with similar missions and attributes to discover if we were well or badly funded. Size, research as related to instruction, program mix, and other attributes were discussed. It was stressed that for some of the institutions that continuity was a major factor. It was felt that perhaps the regionals (EOU,WOU,SOU) might prefer a slightly different process than OIT and than the main research institutions (PSU,OSU,UO).

The next steps are to be a broad involvement and discussion -- perhaps there is no single list that can accomodate everything -- perhaps the lists may need more change for (EOU,WOU,SOU) than (PSU,OSU,UO) -- and OIT is still a different category. It is necessary to text and validate the current lists -- we can look at where they were 10 years ago and where they are now -- assess the relevance and validity and meaning of the lists. It needs to be open to scrutinity -- want to be able to explain and defend the output.

There will be further communication with the IFS and Provost's council. It is anticipated the process will be complete before the faculty leave. The Presidents and Provosts will be a central part of the process and there will be opportunities for input on all sides. Need credibility with the board and with the state legislatiures. Might have to relate to board policy packages. Recognize that various campuses have agreements with the faculty on existing lists and this process would not necessarily impact on that.

Cascade campus was discussed briefly and it was not clear how to proceed - it has elements of a separate entity and of a branch campus and it is not clear there are real peers out there in a meaningful sense. The committee will convene again in the near future (i.e. 2-3 weeks hence) to continue the discussion.

Don't forget that Bob Turner will be at the IFS meeting Friday 8 February to continue the discussion. So it is important to continue providing feedback to him from our respective campuses.

Respectfully submitted

Peter B Gilkey

IFS Representative to the OUS Peer Institution Review Committee
Peter Gilkey Mathematics Department University of Oregon Eugene OR 97403 http://uoregon.edu/~gilkey