E. Gordon Gee (President West Virginia U.)

[cincibuck]

Adding to Ord's history, Rhodes put forth the idea of bonds in lieu of tax dollars and made the guarantee that "every boy or girl that wants to go to an Ohio state college will have a dorm room waiting for them."

If you look at OSU prior to the GI Bill fed enrollment boom you will find two dorms... Baker for the men, Canfield for Women and basically the same set of classroom buildings and labs that exsisted through out the 70's. Rhodes built a slew of dorms but put forth no similar amount of funding for more academic buildings or teachers. The result was the famous freshman orientation speech made repeatedly by Novice Fawcett, "Look at the person on your right, look at the person on your left, when I next address the student body two out of the three of you will be gone."

The school went from something like 5,000 students in the 30s to 45,000 in the mid-sixties with essentially the same amount of academic class space.

NOW then, does this mean we can count on OSU suddenly hosting Mit Romney rallies?

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

The result was the famous freshman orientation speech made repeatedly by Novice Fawcett, "Look at the person on your right, look at the person on your left, when I next address the student body two out of the three of you will be gone."

What's very interesting in reading the oral histories from the university leadership at the time is that they were in universal opposition to Rhodes and to open admissions (Ohio State was making plans on going to selective admissions with most other Big Ten schools in the late 50s), yet there was two distinct and opposing philosophies on how to deal with the students that began to show up in the 60s under the policy.

On the one hand, some were hard asses advocating a "the soonner we flunk them out and send them on their way the better" philosophy. Others, despite opposing the presence of these students in the first place, felt a moral obligation once they were admitted to do what they could to help them succeed.

Where they are in agreement, was in their growing frustration. The university thought that Rhodes would be a temporary speed bump. In five or six years, they'd resume where they left off in the 1950s, yet he kept getting re-elected. That frustration's most famous (and amusing) moment came during one of Rhodes' later campaigns. Rhodes had always maintained that he left Ohio State in good standing his freshman year to return home and support his family but never authorized the university to release his records to the press. In the '78 campaign, Ohio State leaked his transcript to the Plain Dealer showing that he had, in fact, flunked out his freshman year. It didn't help as they were saddled with him for another four years.

 

[stxbuck]

Sorry tibor, but I seperate fans and alumni. Virtually all of the alumni I know care about the university and its reputation. Some more than others, but very, very few have ever been dismissive of the university.

I will admit that I've never understood the hostility that a large portion of the non-alumni fanbase has towards the university. It's almost as if they're resentful that there's a university attached to their beloved football team. Maybe Ohio State's primary role as a university, because it does exist primarily for its students, alumni and faculty, just reminds some fans that they really aren't part of Ohio State no matter how hard they root for its football team or how many articles of Buckeye clothing they own.

It's a strking distance between Michigan's casual fanbase and ours. While the odd academic smack coming from a Western Michigan graduate is utterly ridiculous, I do respect the fact that most of their non-alumni fans take genuine pride in Michigan as an academic institution first.

Well, this is sure to piss a lot of people off, so let the arrows fly.:teeth:

As an alum, I agree completely w/ you completely about the the disconnect between fans of the football program and the university. However, that is the way things are for virtually every powerhouse sports university-Duke,UNC,Florida, the entie SEC except for Vandy,etc.
That said, I think it is ridiculous for scUM fans who didn't go there to get on an academic high horse considering
A-they couldn't get in the school themselves
B-the "plantation" mentality at scUM towards the education of their student athletes.....

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

As an alum, I agree completely w/ you completely about the the disconnect between fans of the football program and the university. However, that is the way things are for virtually every powerhouse sports university-Duke,UNC,Florida, the entie SEC except for Vandy,etc.
That said, I think it is ridiculous for scUM fans who didn't go there to get on an academic high horse considering
A-they couldn't get in the school themselves
B-the "plantation" mentality at scUM towards the education of their student athletes.....

I agree that you can't do much about it. I just wish a greater portion of our fanbase would put football into a better perspective or at least not be so hostile when it comes to the real reason for Ohio State's existence.

Regarding the non-alum M fans running academic smack, there was some tool on their Rivals board last night denigrating Ohio State, yet at the same time he thought that Kenyon and Bowling Green were equivalent institutions. As it turned out, he had gone to John Devry...errr I mean Carroll. I checked John Carrolls admissions statistics and rankings. This guy has zero credibility to attack Ohio State on any basis academically, yet there he was living vicariously through Michigan's academic reputation. There's an idiot on the Rivals domer board who actually did go to DeVry, yet talks academic smack, including the notion that he recieved a better education at DeVry than he would have at Ohio State.

 

[sandgk]

Some news coverage on Gee's return
Cincy Post
Bob Hunter's Rumblings column - Disptach
(Mentions Gee's return in context of Smith's likely boost in compensation as AD).
Kathy Lynn Gray's report -- "This is Ohio State's Time"
Generally there is agreement that Gee's reputation as a fund-raiser and endowment builder is a good thing. "Open your wallets," quipped Gee.

Gee spelled out in general and specific terms some of his expectations of himself and the Ohio State staff.
He plans to increase diversity among students, double the number of members in the alumni association, integrate student athletes into student life, tie graduation rates and athletic scholarships together, tie graduation rates and sports revenues together, and increase access for students.
He also plans to raise lots of money for the university: $2.5 billion to be exact, an amount he let slip as the goal for the university's upcoming capital campaign.
"Open your wallets; I'm here," said Gee to a roar of laughter. "No wallets are safe in this state."
Gee succeeds Karen A. Holbrook, who retired June 30 after five years as president. He will be making about twice what she did.

What remains up in the air is the manner in which Gee will handle the matter of student in the term student-athlete. Some pundits across the nation have it that this speaks to significant changes coming at Ohio State insofar as the academic standing of incoming recruits, particularly in the money sports, is concerned. Others, perhaps leaning on the lessons of Gee's past tenure as OSU's President feel that the academic house is already in better shape than was the case in the 90-97 period. Their thesis might be that Gee will come in and find no instances of a shamefully poor grade point average, less reliance on "jock courses" and a higher percentage of athletes attending class to good end. Support for that position is given by the improved team GPA which shining improvement forms part of the bonus structure for Head Coach Jim Tressel. The shine is polished when you think on the large number of Academic Big Ten honors showering down on the athletes at Ohio State.
So, this contrary thesis has it that with all that is going right in the world between Lane, Olentangy and High Street there is nothing to fix, merely incremental improvement. Still, you cannot ignore his words yesterday, in toto, that he recognizes he cannot pull the rug out from under the Atheltic Department ala Vanderbilt, yet he wants to place additional emphasis on the student part of student athlete.

Which leads me to believe that Gee will try to move the goal-lines on recruits deemed qualified, and their continued qualification once on campus, in fashions both subtle and obvious. It could mean more core classes for student-athletes in the money sports. It could mean that the entrance requirements for a student-athlete, already higher than the NCAA requires will inch upward. Heavens, it could mean he wants to have the overall incoming class reflect more closely the median SAT score of the general student body (or it's ACT equivalent).
At some point such a drive for academic excellence, noble though it might be, could come face-to-face with the harsh reality that it is significantly impairing the viability of the Football Program. Maintaining balance to avoid having your academic cake yet ruining the athletic icing will be a delicate task.
Certainly I would expect him to pay close attention to the graduation rate, though to the extent that helps APR this itself helps the money sports programs. Moreover, the bulk of the athletic programs with the primary exceptions of baseball, basketball and football are so far above APR, so far in fact above the graduation rate of the student body as whole, that they are shining examples of over-achievement. The money sports themselves have shown a determination to maintain and improve their graduation status - I would argue no extreme or punitive measures are required, and, given Gee's professed love for College Athletics I hope he feels the same way. Hopefully Gee takes the whole body of work of the Athletic Department into consideration when setting goals that seek to improve the academic standing of Ohio State's student-athletes. Hopefully he realizes that without the money sports, fueled as they are by fan support - itself maintained by an excellent and high quality of play and players, there would be a significant drain on the University Budget. The goose that lays the golden eggs has done and is doing a good job of cleaning up its academic nest since Gee's last stint as tOSU President. That same goose remains a vital source of funding for student-athletes in a dizzying array of sports.

The one area I feel Gee could provide a boost toward, from his "bully pulpit" as the Ohio State President, is to work to improve the graduation rate of the non-caucasian athletes in the money sports. Bringing that up to par with the body of the football class would be a great start.

 

[cincibuck]

I have mixed feelings about selective enrollment schools.

Ord and I have gone round and round on this before, so I'll spare you most of my thoughts except to say that I would much rather defend Andy Katzenmoyer's summer class schedule knowing that he entered on the same basis that the rest of his class entered and faced the same rules regarding majors, minors, GPA, etc, etc as everyone else on campus, than to defend how Desmond Howard, a person who could barely speak a coherent sentence managed to get in to, much less remain at, "The Harvard of the West."

OSU's open enrollment only guaranteed you the chance, the opportunity, to show the school you belonged and deserved to be there. Yes, everyone got in, but only those who worked at it remained.

Selective enrollment will do nothing but create hypocrisy at the very place where merit should be the measure. Stand by for quotas, diversity issues, legacies... [/font]

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

I have mixed feelings about selective enrollment schools.

Ord and I have gone round and round on this before, so I'll spare you most of my thoughts except to say that I would much rather defend Andy Katzenmoyer's summer class schedule knowing that he entered on the same basis that the rest of his class entered and faced the same rules regarding majors, minors, GPA, etc, etc as everyone else on campus, than to defend how Desmond Howard, a person who could barely speak a coherent sentence managed to get in to, much less remain at, "The Harvard of the West."

OSU's open enrollment only guaranteed you the chance, the opportunity, to show the school you belonged and deserved to be there. Yes, everyone got in, but only those who worked at it remained.

Selective enrollment will do nothing but create hypocrisy at the very place where merit should be the measure. Stand by for quotas, diversity issues, legacies... [/font]

I've always understood and respected your views on this Cinci. It's just that open admissions were hurting us on so many levels. Faculty recruitment became exceedingly difficult. I guarantee that, were we still open admissions, we would not have the caliber of faculty to pull in 650 million dollars in research funding last year. Using the federal government's standard multiplier that translated into 24K high paying, white collar jobs and 9 billion dollars in total economic impact. Also, top Ohio students were increasingly avoiding Ohio State under open admissions--often leaving the state for college. For a state that's suffering a well documented "brain drain," should we really sacrifice the above for the benefit of some mediocre kids, particularly when there are so many other options open to them in the state's university system (12 other public universities, branch campuses, less selective private universities and community colleges)? At the end of the day, it really came down to the issue of choice. Ohio State could either be a great national university with all of the benefits that brings to the state or it could be an open admissions university. It couldn't be both.

Aside from the above factors, keep in mind that open admissions hurt the very kids who supposedly were benefitting from the policy. Most evidence shows that kids who are let into and then flunk out of a university above their abilities never end up completing a college degree in comparison with similar students who are channeled into institutions more in line with their abilities and where the faculty does not consider their presence to be an abomination. At your orientation, that kid next to you who ended up flunking out would probably have been much better served had the state had the wisdom and courage to say to him, "Son, Ohio State's out of your league, you'd do much better at Kent State or Bowling Green."

Also, worrying about the "hypocrisy factor" in the football program (which I do grant is real) is of a minor concern, and to structure overall university admissions based upon anything related to football would really smack of the tail wagging the dog. As long as the football players that do come in are decent kids who don't prey on the regular student body, stay out of jail and graduate in respectable numbers, I can reconcile myself to any compromises made on admitting what amounts to around 10 kids a year. Also, it's not like we're letting anyone in to play foobtball. There have been several instances (accompanied by much handwringing from some on this board) of the admissions department rejecting football recruits in recent years.

 

[tibor75]

Well said ORD. I agree - not sure why any top high school student in Ohio would go to OSU when any idiot could also get in. And rest assured, open admissions would allow a lot of idiots into OSU. Let them go elsewhere. If youre too lazy or not smart enough to maintain a 3.0 GPA in high school, you don't deserve to go to the flagship state university.

 

[ekeen]

ORD and Cinci:

You guys both have very well thought out positions. I think open enrollment did hurt Ohio State in national rankings and against our peers in the Big Ten. With that being said....I think most kids have the option to start at a branch and then transfer to the main campus which I think is a good idea given the many temptations for the incoming freshman. Besides, in the end your degree says the Ohio State University, not 'Branch Transfer'. As a matter of fact, when I got in to tOSU I was considered a transfer student because of the classes I took while in the service from the University of Maryland as well as other schools. They didn't even want my ACT score. I couldn't believe it.

So, I think it's still achievable to live the dream.....just not as a freshman at the main campus. That's not all bad either, getting some of those ridicolous GECs out of the way at the branch campuses is probably a good idea given how far the walk to that one GEC hall was....name escapes me....was it Gerlach Hall? The one that is north almost to Lane.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

This is interesting. Higher education Chancellor Eric Fingerhut personally recruited Gee back to Ohio State, with a one hour phone call between the two being one of the decisive events.

It's going to be pretty difficult for Stickland and Fingerhut to not give Gee everything he wants after they personally recruited him to come back. Good for us; bad for the Fredo schools.

toledoblade.com -- 1-hour phone call led Gee back to OSU

 

[cincibuck]

I'm not questioning your sources, Ord, but I wonder... it's easy for me to fall into the world as it ought to be, not as it is, but it seems to me that OSU's faculty recruiting problems had more to do with lack of money to attract certain people. The state legislature just never saw fit to put the kind of money into OSU that other states, Wisconsin, Michigan and Illinois particularly, poured into their "flagship schools." If it was out of deference to Miami that's one thing, but I think it was across the board. It's my understanding that Ohio has simply never spent as much on any level of education as many other states.

In the past the school counted heavily on Battelle... (thanks Wingate) the huge research and think tank just south of the campus... to attract research oriented professors. Most of those folks don't want to be bothered with teaching any undergrads and gladly shove that task off to GTAs many of whom didn't speak English yet taught freshman math and science courses to their frustration and that of the poor students. I had heard that Batelle had dropped off, bad management, poor results, and that that was one of the major reasons why the university had recruiting problems.

The information about what happens to students who get in the wrong school is most interesting. From my own perspective I wonder how they do when they graduate having never shared time in a class with bright students. There is something to be said for being exposed to what is expected in tough competition. I taught in an inner city school for a while and I often felt that one of the biggest problems was that the students had no idea of just what the expectations were in a good suburban school.

I yield to the fact that you've read up on the topic and I'm going on anecdotal information for the most part. Always interesting.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

I'm not questioning your sources, Ord, but I wonder... it's easy for me to fall into the world as it ought to be, not as it is, but it seems to me that OSU's faculty recruiting problems had more to do with lack of money to attract certain people. The state legislature just never saw fit to put the kind of money into OSU that other states, Wisconsin, Michigan and Illinois particularly, poured into their "flagship schools." If it was out of deference to Miami that's one thing, but I think it was across the board. It's my understanding that Ohio has simply never spent as much on any level of education as many other states.

In the past the school counted heavily on .... I want to say Beltran... the huge research and think tank just south of the campus... to attract research oriented professors. Most of those folks don't want to be bothered with teaching any undergrads and gladly shove that task off to GTAs many of whom didn't speak English yet taught freshman math and science courses to their frustration and that of the poor students. I had heard that Beltran.. or whatever the hell it's called, had dropped off, bad management, poor results, and that that was one of the major reasons why the university had recruiting problems.

The information about what happens to students who get in the wrong school is most interesting. From my own perspective I wonder how they do when they graduate having never shared time in a class with bright students. There is something to be said for being exposed to what is expected in tough competition. I taught in an inner city school for a while and I often felt that one of the biggest problems was that the students had no idea of just what the expectations were in a good suburban school.

I yield to the fact that you've read up on the topic and I'm going on anecdotal information for the most part. Always interesting.

My sources on the difficulty in faculty recruitment that open admissions led to come from some of the oral history interviews that I've linked above. You, however, are definately right that money was also a strong contributing factor. I'm sure that the fact that we're not asking top faculty to come to a university where they'll be forced to deal with unqualified undergraduates and the fact that we've built up a 2 billion dollar endowment that allows us to throw money at National Academies level professors go hand-in-hand. Which is more important, probably varies on an individual basis, but I agree that both are important. As your post on dorm construction made clear, Rhodes was all about quantity over quality. He built too many campuses, allowed schools to add branch campuses (which Ohio State was adamantly against) at will and usurp Ohio State's traditional role by adding research and doctoral programs with no rationale or justification other than the institutional egos of the regional schools to turn themselves into mini-Ohio States. Combined with the funding compact of the 1960s, which essentially treated all universities equally, Ohio ended up with a peanut butter type of system where resources were spread around so thinly that everybody got some, but nobody got enough. One of the most encouraging proposals that Stickland and Fingerhut have spoken of is finally tearing up the 1960s funding model and funding schools individually and in accordance with their "unique mission." Ohio State should be funded at a different level than the rest of the system. Berkeley is funded better than the Cal State campuses which in turn are funded better than the California community colleges. As long as each is funded adequately in the context of their proper mission, there's nothing wrong with this. The problem in Ohio is that the Rhodes policies led to a system where every school (except Miami and Central State) tend to believe that Ohio State's mission is the same as their mission. We have a system where everybody wants to be a chief, and nobody wants to be an Indian.

As hard as I am on Miami, I will admit that they have largely stuck to their historic admission and not sought to usurp Ohio State's, with the notable exception of selective admissions. My anger towards that school has to do with their actions in the 1960s and those of their former president who was Rhodes' first Board of Regents Chancellor. They really did stab Ohio State in the back to dumb it down on the undergraduate level, then with the protection of their former president, failed to build enough dorm space to accomodate the burgeoning baby boom enrollment in the 60s and 70s. They never had any special legal or political dispensation to have selective admissions. They, in essence, simply backdoored their way into them through not building enough dorm space--an option, given Rhodes intent to turn Ohio State into a 100K open admissions university that we could never have gotten away with.

Now that we're allowed to compete on an equal playing field, the numbers have clearly shown that we can more than compete for the best undergraduates. We passed them by a couple of years ago, and the 2007 numbers show a significant and widening gap in our favor. As far as I'm concerned, Miami can actually play a very constructive role in the university system that is coming into being as the William & Mary to our UVA in the Virginia analogy. The real problem will be getting OU, Kent State, Toledo and all the rest to accept their proper and historic roles as regional uiversities with limited graduate programs.

Your thoughts on how higher competition influences mediocre or underachieving students is very interesting. Clearly Ohio State used to admit some students who under any circumstances were unable to take advantage of what the university had to offer and were merely flunk outs waiting to happen. I'm sure that, under open admissions, there were numerous students who underachieved in high school from laziness or lack of motivation rather than a lack of innate intelligence. I'm sure that some continued in their ways and were flunked out, but I'm also certain that some woke up and took advantage of what Ohio State had to offer. I just don't know how any institution could seperate this wheat from the chaff when evaluating the applicants whose only chance of acceptance was open admissions. Obviously, I disagree with the notion of letting them all in and letting it sort itself out at Ohio State. To me that's where the branch campuses and the community college come into play. Go to Newark or Lima for a year or two, get your shit together, prove yourself and there will be a place waiting for you at Ohio State.

Another development in Ohio State admissions is that we've clearly reached a point where we're rejecting applicants who would obviously succeed at Ohio State (the Miami board was getting their panties in a bunch about kids with 27 ACT scores ending up at Miami after getting rejected by Ohio State). That to me is a more significant question than whether clearly unqualified applicants should be accepted. I just don't know how you get around that. We had 24,000 applications last year and simply don't have the money or the facilities to accomodate all of them. And as I've said above (all Fredo of Ohio smack aside), Ohio does offer a very good secondary university for bright motivated Ohio kids who miss the cut at Ohio State.

 

[Wingate1217]

I'm not questioning your sources, Ord, but I wonder... it's easy for me to fall into the world as it ought to be, not as it is, but it seems to me that OSU's faculty recruiting problems had more to do with lack of money to attract certain people. The state legislature just never saw fit to put the kind of money into OSU that other states, Wisconsin, Michigan and Illinois particularly, poured into their "flagship schools." If it was out of deference to Miami that's one thing, but I think it was across the board. It's my understanding that Ohio has simply never spent as much on any level of education as many other states.

In the past the school counted heavily on .... I want to say Beltran... the huge research and think tank just south of the campus... to attract research oriented professors. Most of those folks don't want to be bothered with teaching any undergrads and gladly shove that task off to GTAs many of whom didn't speak English yet taught freshman math and science courses to their frustration and that of the poor students. I had heard that Beltran.. or whatever the hell it's called, had dropped off, bad management, poor results, and that that was one of the major reasons why the university had recruiting problems.

The information about what happens to students who get in the wrong school is most interesting. From my own perspective I wonder how they do when they graduate having never shared time in a class with bright students. There is something to be said for being exposed to what is expected in tough competition. I taught in an inner city school for a while and I often felt that one of the biggest problems was that the students had no idea of just what the expectations were in a good suburban school.

I yield to the fact that you've read up on the topic and I'm going on anecdotal information for the most part. Always interesting.

Do you mean Batielle?? or Battelle Memorial Institute??

 

[cincibuck]

Do you mean Batielle?? or Battelle Memorial Institute??

Ah, yes, Batelle...

 

[Jagdaddy]

Your thoughts on how higher competition influences mediocre or underachieving students is very interesting. Clearly Ohio State used to admit some students who under any circumstances were unable to take advantage of what the university had to offer and were merely flunk outs waiting to happen. I'm sure that, under open admissions, there were numerous students who underachieved in high school from laziness or lack of motivation rather than a lack of innate intelligence. I'm sure that some continued in their ways and were flunked out, but I'm also certain that some woke up and took advantage of what Ohio State had to offer. I just don't know how any institution could seperate this wheat from the chaff when evaluating the applicants whose only chance of acceptance was open admissions. Obviously, I disagree with the notion of letting them all in and letting it sort itself out at Ohio State. To me that's where the branch campuses and the community college come into play. Go to Newark or Lima for a year or two, get your shit together, prove yourself and there will be a place waiting for you at Ohio State.

I may be able to offer some anecdotal perspective here: I went to OSU from 1987-1991, right as the move towards more selectivity was beginning and definitely went to school with some kids who probably didn't belong at any University, much less OSU, and vanished fairly rapidly from the campus. We definitely need selectivity, and I agree with the overall direction in which things are going On the other hand, as a bright but socially inept and immature kid with high standardized test scores but a mediocre 3.0 in high school, I only got into OSU (and thank God was allowed entry to the honors program on the basis of test scores alone), where I promptly grew up, took a ton of honors classes, graduated in four years with a double major and a bit better than a 3.4 GPA, and went on to an Ivy League Law School (all at a bargain price :)) Tibor's professed, though likely only semi-believed, view of alumni notwithstanding, I feel like tOSU taking a chance on me was quite possibly the single most important thing that's happened to me and sometimes wonder what would have happened if they hadn't. Accordingly, I hope they don't take things so far for the sake of rankings that they don't leave some wiggle room for some of the later bloomers that can show some evidence of potential.

Now having said that, there's no doubt that the smarter the kids around you are, the more you can learn about how tough the competition out there really can be. At the time, even the honors program at tOSU didn't fully prepare me for the competition I encountered in law school, although I'll bet it would do better now as admissions have gotten much tougher.