ACADEMIC PRODUCTIVITY PLAN:

A PROGRESS REPORT

 

April 1996


 
Introduction
 
In the 1993 session the Oregon Legislature required that all of the institutions in OSSHE develop "productivity plans" in order to increase efficiency, productivity and our capacity to serve the increasing numbers of students whom we expect to seek higher education over the next decade. Many of us may be uncomfortable trying to define "productivity" in an institution of higher education, where we might believe that the emphasis should be on the quality of the programs and what is learned by the students rather than simply how many students are "accommodated". However, the Legislature's requirement is not an unreasonable one, particularly in a time of constrained resources, and is not necessarily incompatible with the objectives of quality and learning. Furthermore, it is a far more reasonable approach than has been taken in some states, which now have legislation dictating teaching loads, curriculum, average class sizes, and the like.
 
At the UO, our response to the legislative directive resulted in an Academic Productivity Plan, dated March 1994. This plan was put together by a committee of faculty and administrators, chaired by Charlie Wright. It included input from a large number of departments, giving specific examples of how they felt they could be more productive while maintaining or improving quality. The overall view of this plan is that there is no "silver bullet" which will solve this problem, but rather it must be solved through a large number of incremental changes, appropriate to specific departments, courses, majors, and the like. Copies of this Academic Productivity Plan are available from the Office of Academic Affairs.
 
The Academic Productivity Plan was organized around three primary goals:
 
 
It is important to note that these three primary goals addressed what the committee believed to be our three major challenges -- our responsibility to serve the increasing number of Oregon high school graduates, as well as the increasing number of "non-traditional" students who need access to higher education, the imperative to maintain and enhance the quality of the institution, and the essential fact that without financial stability we would certainly not be able to achieve the first two goals. As such, it directly addresses the issue of the "cost-quality-access" dilemma, about which much has been written nationally, and which all of higher education is trying to address.
 
For each of these primary goals a number of "operational goals" were established, which were designed to help us achieve the goal. These operational goals are listed in the next section of this report, along with a partial listing of activities undertaken to address each of these operational goals. Note as you review these operational goals that they are almost entirely "outcome" oriented--we ask to be judged by what we accomplish rather than by "inputs."
 
The next section of this report is basically an outline. For each of the primary goals, the operational goals from the Plan are listed. We could certainly now define additional operational goals, and perhaps we should do so. For each operational goal I have listed activities which I believe address that goal. Some of these activities are virtually completed, some are in progress, and some are just beginning--my own assessment of the status of each activity is indicated. As you can see, we have taken this plan very seriously, and are making significant progress on most fronts. But I believe this is an appropriate time for a serious review, for another look at the operational goals and consideration of additional ones, for "course corrections" as necessary, and for a recommitment to the goal of a high quality, highly productive, and highly creative university community.
 
Conclusion
 
The University of Oregon is clearly faced with many challenges; however, we are not as unique in this regard as we sometimes feel. Virtually all public universities, and most private ones, are faced with the "cost-quality-access" dilemma, and many of them are far behind us in addressing this dilemma in an effective way. While it is certainly true that most of the major universities are better funded than the University of Oregon, many of them have other problems that are not as serious here. Examples of these would be more intrusive legislatures, less dedicated faculty, less effective leadership, less desirable locations, and less of a commitment to the university as a community of scholars. As I meet with chief academic officers from major universities around the country, my general impression is that the University of Oregon, while clearly one of the most poorly funded of this group, is in its overall situation somewhere near the middle of the group.
 
The success, or failure, of the University of Oregon in meeting the challenges of the coming decade will be determined directly by us--the faculty and staff of the University. While I am reasonably confident that the disinvestment in higher education that has occurred over the past five years is ending, I do not yet see a real reinvestment. Although we certainly do not have all of the resources that we wish, or could effectively use, we are more stable financially than we have been at any time since the passage of Measure 5, and we do have the ability to continue to improve the educational programs of the University, and our own situations within it, if we work creatively together as a community of scholars dedicated to the highest standards of teaching, learning, research and service.