To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.

1922 Minnesota gubernatorial election

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1922 Minnesota gubernatorial election

← 1920 November 7, 1922 1924 →
Magnus Johnson.jpg
Nominee J. A. O. Preus Magnus Johnson Edward Indrehus
Party Republican Farmer–Labor Democratic
Popular vote 309,756 295,479 79,903
Percentage 45.21% 43.13% 11.66%

County Results

Preus:      30–40%      40–50%      50-60%      60-70%
Johnson:      40-50%      50-60%      60-70%


Governor before election

J. A. O. Preus

Elected Governor

J. A. O. Preus

The 1922 Minnesota gubernatorial election took place on November 7, 1922. Republican Party of Minnesota candidate J. A. O. Preus defeated Farmer–Labor Party challenger Magnus Johnson.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    4 239
    8 463
    3 348
  • ✪ Six Presidents
  • ✪ Tlingit Music--Past, Present and Future: Ed Littlefield at TEDxSitka
  • ✪ Big Thinking - Justice Sinclair - What do we do about the legacy of Indian residential schools?
  • ✪ "Shooting Back: New Frontiers in the Indian Image Wars"
  • ✪ RSC 2012 Governor General Lecture Series: We Are All Treaty People: Redefining the Relationship


[ Music ] >> Good afternoon >> Good afternoon. >> My name is Jean Quam, I'm the Dean of the College of Education and Human Development. On behalf of President Kaler and the College, I want to welcome you to this historic event at the University of Minnesota, which will include the university's current president plus his five predecessors. I want to thank Gary Engstrand, Janet Kendra, Jon Steadland, and Lori, Laura Johnson for their hard work in organizing today's event. When Gary first brought up this idea, I said that we would be going back a very long period of time, but then I realized that I had been a faculty member under each of these presidents [laughter], suddenly it didn't seem quite so long [laughter]. What's important is at no time in history has the university had six of its presidents alive at the same time covering over four decades of leadership. So we warmly and enthusiastically welcome them to this public conversation. Please join me in welcoming the six presidents in the order in which they served in office. President C. Peter Magrath, 1974 to 1984. [ Applause ] President Kenneth H. Keller, 1985 to 1988. [ Applause ] President Nils Hasselmo, 1888 to 1997 [laughter], 1988 [inaudible]. >> [Inaudible] 100 years old. [ Applause ] He looks very good for his age [laughter]. President Mark G. Yudof, 1997 to 2002. [ Applause ] President Robert H. Bruininx, 2002 to 2011. [ Applause ] And President Eric W. Kaler, 2011 to the present. [ Applause ] This will be a conversation among the six presidents about some of the major issues facing the university and higher education. The conversation will be moderated by Lori Sturdevant, columnist and education, editorial writer for the Star Tribune who I'd like now to welcome to the stage. [ Applause ] During the panel this afternoon and the discussion there will be volunteers in the aisles with cards on which you may write questions to be submitted to the presidents. Thank you very much and we'll let the discussion begin. >> Well thank you very much Dean, Jean and we're so delighted. I have to stop for a minute and just say, wow, I'm so glad to be with all of you, people I've covered, people I admire so much. Thank you so much for the leadership you have shown this state and this university. [ Applause ] We are gathered here though not to look backward, but to talk about the present, to understand the, the situation in which this university sits and to talk about the future. Each of you brings a special vantage and we want you to draw on your experiences, those perspectives that you've gained in the years that you were here and especially, in the years since you have left this institution. To help us understand better where we are as a, community devoted, is devoted to this institution, where we are in the quest to be, to create an educated society and to have the benefits that go with a well-educated society here in Minnesota. We're going to have a conversation that indeed will involve all of you and you heard about the opportunity to submit questions, they will be coming up here to me from the audience so I invite all of those things as well. I've already coached these new, these presidents, we hope for a lively enough conversation that a little bit of interrupting will be in order and filibustering is not allowed [laughter]. President Magrath, I'd like to begin with you. You've been away from us the longest and you've had interesting roles in Washington with national associations and have had a chance to consider the, the, the whole landscape of higher education. Help us get at that 30,000 foot level and understand the context, the higher education context in this country in which this institution operates today. >> Well first of all, I just want to quickly say I'm glad to be alive and I'm very glad to be [laughter], yeah to be here with these wonderful individuals. In answer to your question a, a, a quick overview. It seems to me that the financial landscape and, you know, money is kind of important if you want to get stuff done and universities are in the business of getting good stuff done. The landscape of support for American higher education, I'm speaking basically the public sector, it applies all over though, is, is extraordinarily difficult than it was when I was first president here and I suspect in many ways for the people that, that succeeded me. The amount of state money that goes into the U today is, I'm not exactly sure what it is, it's probably 15 16 percent or it's not much, it's been going down and pardon my English, it ain't going back up in any foreseeable future. We are in difficult financial straits. If we're going to continue to perform our service to the public and to the people that means, it's my opinion, that universities have got to be extraordinarily resourceful, not only in lending and borrowing, getting money from donors, etcetera, etcetera and trying to control costs, which contrary to critics, I think we do extraordinarily well. We've got to be entrepreneurial and we have to generate resources by, in my judgment, getting into relationships with business and industry, it can be done without selling your soul and it's a way that you can generate resources, which we have to do if we're going to continue our public service mission. >> So tight money is a national phenomenon for higher education? >> It's absolutely a national phenomenon, it goes, you know, we can get into specifics, we don't need to. If you go to the University of Michigan I guess the amount of state support that the state puts into the University of Michigan and Michigan State is probably 6 or 7 percent, UVA, Virginia, it's the same thing. Some of us are willing to accept less and less state support if we can be free of ridiculous regulations that are extraordinarily expensive. But this is a national pattern throughout the United States. >> And yet we keep hearing that we need an educated population more than ever and that the output, not only of the human capital output, but the information, the knowledge output that comes with an institution such as this one is needed more than ever. Help us understand that dichotomy. >> Well, if you don't have an educated population, and in my view, I think we should hope to have everybody as educated as humanly possible. If you don't have an educated population you're not going to have a strong economy and an ability to get stuff done that's socially and economically useful. >> You know, I was going to say Lori, there's an asymmetry. Everyone agrees higher education is important and almost no one wants to pay for it and part of it is an aging demographic. I mean if you think of the priorities, and I'm not against any of these things, but we have, you know, pharmaceuticals for the elderly, we have social security, we have Medicare, Medicaid and lock up the bad guys and things like that. So the shine isn't quite on higher ed the way it was in the 50s. There are competing priorities and the competing priorities increasingly get resolved by an electrode that is increasingly aging, even though we have a booming Latino population and so forth. So I think that's, that's part of the problem and part of it is a certain skepticism that sort of we changed, why don't you? You do it the way you did in 1878, even before Nils was president [laughter] and, and you do it the same old way. You know, we don't do it that way at Lockheed and we don't do it that way in the airline business and so forth, but it's very different. I mean it's a labor intensive, education is an unusual type of public good. >> Well and then. >> Lori. >> Yes. >> You know, since I represent the 19th century or the [laughter] let me go back and, and, you know the traditional course was that the, the population of Minnesota looked to the University of Minnesota to be the access to the future. >> Right. >> In the 19th century and I am disturbed more by the, more than by just the sheer economics, I'm disturbed by the attitudinal change that has taken place. It, it's now higher education is looked upon as a private good rather than a public good and I can't think of what the State of Minnesota would have been if over, you know, from the 19th century on the state had looked upon education as a private good rather than the public good. I mean the, the investment in the university has paid these enormous dividends over these years and at this time I see, I see kind of a general anti-intellectual strain, a suspicion of universities for what we do and, of course, a suspicion that we're not handling our resources appropriately. But I'm, I'm disturbed by this attitudinal change and what that means in the long run. >> Yes, President Keller you've been here in Minnesota a good deal in the years since you were president. >> Uh-hm. >> Pick up on this conversation about the attitudes about this institution specifically. Where does this institution fit in the, in the state and in the nation and what is its role you see and how has that changed in the recent years? >> Well, you know, we always speak of ourselves as a public university, as a land grant university, as a research university and in an earlier discussion we were having today, we pointed out that all of those were extremely important, but not unique roles in the sense that there are other systems of higher education in the state and it's together that we provide all of the opportunities that the students need for, in various kinds of ways. So we have one kind of role and in some sense the full panoply of things that it started in the 19th century of being done under the Land Grant Mission. >> Uh-hm. >> Can, can be a little bit more narrowed in the sense that others are picking up some of that and, and my view is that that's a good thing that if we work together we have the real opportunity in this state. The research university is, is a different beast, you know, it's a unique American beast pretty much and it, it, it talks about research, but it does not neglect teaching and in fact, the synergy of teaching and research is what makes it very, very special. It's sort of obvious in the fields where a lot of research is going on that bringing into the classroom somebody who is excitedly involved in, in current research is an important thing in, in certain fields like engineering where the world has changed over 20 or 30 years. If you don't have that kind of person in the classroom you, you, you really lose something. But it, it's equally important to recognize how research is helped by teaching. >> Yes. >> You know, I used to. >> Yeah. >> Eric will appreciate this, I used to say that the only way you can understand thermodynamics is to take it twice and teach it once [laughter]. >> And Ken turned out to be right actually [laughter], although I have some students who would tell you I had to teach it three times before. >> That's right. >> I understood it, you know. >> There are insights that come from that and in fact, undergraduate teaching is much more stimulating in that respect than graduate teaching because we've already indoctrinated the graduate students to speak in our jargon. The undergraduates are, will tell you they don't understand what you're talking about, maybe you ought to rethink what you're talking about. So that's a very important aspect of it and I. >> When I first started covering the university many years ago we talked about a three part mission of education, research and outreach. It seems as though the research leg has gotten stronger and longer as the other two have been emphasized a bit less or am I misreading that? >> Well I think it's certainly true that the research leg of that stool is something we spend a lot of time talking about, but we have a presence in every county in Minnesota. We are enormously important to the agriculture industry. We're enormously important to the health and vitality of small towns across the state and we're critical to supplying healthcare and dental care and veterinary care and what we're doing with the avian flu epidemic now in our vet diagnostic laboratory is heroic. I mean these people are working night and day and that role in the state often gets subsumed or not talked about as much, but it's, it's vitally, vitally important. I wanted to build a little bit on, on Peter's comment. As you think about a, a state budget as a, as a pie, you've got a health and human services piece, you have a K through 12 piece and those grow. While pie is being uniformly round, that may not be true, but this pie is, the slice that's left for everything else gets squeezed. So our story needs to be told and, and actuated in the sense that the way to stop growing the healthcare cost is actually to invest in research and in education of healthcare providers in ways that they're operating at their highest proficiency and devices and drugs are developed that, that limit morbidity and mortality and so that the, the inextricable link between what a research university does and its role in, in healthcare and, of course, its role in creating effective teachers and, and helping close the achievement gap. It just can't be overstated, it's at the heart of almost everything that's good for the State of Minnesota. >> Well help Minnesotans understand what it takes to maintain a research university. >> Well I think it takes clearly more than what we're expending and investing at the moment and as I listen to my colleagues here on the stage, I was reminded of what this state was like in the post-World War two period. This was a period when there was a covenant between the citizens of the country, the citizens of the state, and the public officials at the national and state level. So you had the Vanderbush Commission that really set forth a vision for higher education in the area of research. There was this feeling that higher education was indispensable to sort of rebuilding the economy of the country. At the same time, thousands and thousands of people came here to study under the GI Bill and I think that that connection between public policy, that is this public consensus that underlies the policy and education at all levels from preschool right through the highest levels of graduate and professional education, is somewhat frayed at the moment. And as we increasingly engage in this global economy, there are really two things that are going to make a huge difference and the one is to really harness the ideas that go with innovation and, and discovery, the creation of new ideas. I love, I love the, the variation I'm driven to discover when you added Made in Minnesota because I think it sort of deepens the appreciation that people have for the work that goes on here. So research is vitally important, it defines a lot of the DNA of the University of Minnesota, but education is getting increasingly important because the public is quite skeptical that we're, they're getting their money's worth when it comes to sending their, their sons and daughters to the University of Minnesota or other places in the country. And so we have, I think we have to do a better job of, first of all, selling the value of higher education in, in, in ways and in language that people can grasp and understand and, and then we also have to, I think, reenergize this debate that was that, that really flourished in the post-World War two period and in, in the passage of the National Defense Education Act about 10 to 12 years later. >> Yeah, Lori. >> And that's missing right now. >> Yes, yes. >> In the conversation. >> I have to say. >> Mr. Keller. >> When we talk about a public university to which we're all devoted and, and its value to the state, its value to the country because in fact, the research universities are only about 60 and Nils used to head the group the AAU, which was the 60 research universities, half public and half private. We don't have national universities in the United States, so we have this federation of public and private institutions that serve a national purpose in research, but also in teaching and I never get very far along before I, I manage to quote Thomas Jefferson when he established the University of Virginia, which was the first public university and he said, "It was to avail the state of those talents which nature has sewn equally among the poor as the rich and which perish without use if not sought for and cultivated". It's, it's, they're words to live by in, in, in the work we do. >> That is nice. Well let me ask President Hasselmo, as you were the head of, of that research university group, what did you try to convince American citizens about the, the, the worth of this, these institutions, but what kind of extra supports they need? >> Well you know, the idea that the, the universities of the nation were going to be the research arm of the federal government, of the nation, that idea came about 1945 when Walter Vanderbush wrote. >> Right. >> Wrote his famous report. Where he was a scientific counselor to the president of the United States and he said the university, the federal government should invest in our research universities as the scientific, the research arm of the federal government and since then, we have seen this enormous growth in federal investment in the universities, which has been incredibly productive. Not only has it, you know, led the marshal the prosperity that we see in this nation and some of the social change, but it has been a model for the world. I come from somewhat of a different perspective because I started in another country and why did my generation look to America to come for our education after we had finished university education in, in for example Sweden. We came here because the notion was that in America you had the best higher education system in the world and that you had research being conducted in the context that where you also had a broad spectrum of teaching. And today we have, you know, where, what do we see in Abu Dhabi and Dubai and in China, they are investing massively in their research universities and by, by the way they're doing it from something that to me looks suspiciously like the Land Grant model research teaching and service. And, you know, they may be outflanking us if we do not continue to make that investment in what really was an American invention. >> [Inaudible]. >> The, the research university combined with teaching and service. >> I just wanted to add research universities are really expensive and maybe everyone in the audience doesn't think about. The teaching loads tend to be lighter, you don't have people teaching five courses. The people who create knowledge, as well as transmit knowledge, it's a rare type talent, you know, it's competitive to hire them and retain them and all the rest of that. And the whole graduate student apparatus, which there is no real research program without the wonderful graduate students, it's all very expensive. And the last time I did research on this, America spends more money on potato chips than on research from the federal government and maybe they like the flavor better, but [laughter] I mean I don't know that message is sticking and I'm not really saying that I think all the research is important in humanity and so forth, but people need to think about how it has changed their life, you know, whether it's, you know, whether it's apples or retractable seat belts or pacemakers or whatever and it doesn't have to be that way, but it's where we placed our bets and I think it would be a shame to lose it. But I, when you listen to many politicians, if you listen carefully, it's really not on their agenda. Their agenda is how much are you charging, how many are you graduating, how accessible, a very important issue access, but there's no sense of a [inaudible] mission. It's all very it's, it's a, I don't know it's a sort of alga rhythm that's very simplistic in nature so. >> Well I wanted to give President Magrath this because you were. >> I was. >> The head of an organization that included both land grant institutions like this one and state universities who have a somewhat different mission. How did you emphasize those differences? >> Okay well the land grant system is the greatest thing that's in education that's ever been delivered and I'm passionately land grant. Having said that, you don't technically have to be a land grant university as University Minnesota is or West Virginia or Nebraska. There are lots of universities, they're not as big and prestigious as the U that have the land grant philosophy of serving people through research, education, teaching, outreach, which I prefer to use the word engagement. Those things to me all come together. I don't draw a big distinction between research and education. Somebody mentioned undergraduate students. Undergraduate students by the way, and I think my colleagues would agree, they can get involved in serious research with their professors at the undergraduate level and learn and contribute just as graduate students, which already are pretty well into a certain mode. So the land grant model is the model as far as I'm concerned. >> Okay, very good. >> Lori, you asked me about AAU, the Association of American Universities, and it was founded in 1900. >> Wow. >> Then eventually it [inaudible] on graduate education in this country as almost an accrediting agency for graduate education, which was running rampant after Americans stopped going to Germany for their graduate education and they could do it at John Hopkins and other institutions in this country and there were 14 founders. And from the beginning there were a combination of public and private universities that had in common excellence in graduate education and research and the association still, for the 62 public and private universities, lobbied congress for funding for a research investment in the universities and also for reasonable regulation of, of research. Very important issues that that the AAU has to deal with. >> And would that organization or would you care to venture some advice for this institution as we think about how we, as an institution, should respond to this changing climate that several of you have described. What, what should be done about, for example, the erosion in state support for higher education? >> Well I think we have to be out in the [inaudible] and, and I must say that I was hardly ever as inspired when I was president as when I was, when I was out in around [inaudible], Minnesota, a small town Minnesota, and I saw how the university influenced the lives of people in those communities in agriculture, of course. But also in health services, legal services, and in strategic planning and this was one of the things that I found big, such as strength of this university and of the land grant mission, that's why I like the land grant mission so much because you do the best research in the world, but you are not just doing that in isolation. But there is an automatic mechanism for technology and knowledge transferred to the communities and to the, to the people. >> My, my answer by the way on what we should do is pray [laughter]. Yeah, and then row to shore and when we get to the shore, let's find other ways to generate the bucks, the money that we need to do our public service mission. >> You. >> You eluded to earlier to a more relationships with business. Say just a bit more if you would. >> Say that again? >> You had eluded to stronger connections to business. >> Yes. >> Say a little more about that. >> In, whether we like it or not, people have different perspectives, you know, this is kind of a, last time I checked, a capitalist business society. We have a lot of businesses, they're not all good, but some are really quite good and pretty good, and in my experience, it's possible to develop collaborative relationships with business that is a win for the business and a win for the university in all kinds of the ways, including generating resources. And it can be done without compromising the fundamental freedom essential for a university to pursue truth, to teach it, to argue and to discuss, it can be done without selling your soul in my judgment and I think it's got to be done unless somebody has some magical formula as to how we're going to snap our fingers and get a lot more money. I don't think it's going to happen. >> Lori, that network already exists. We did a family tree for what is now the College of Science and Engineering and I've been told that if you say Institute of Technology it costs you a dollar. >> Oh shit, at least a dollar [laughter]. >> [Inaudible] Science and Engineering. We did the family tree of corporations that had been founded on the basis of innovations made in the institute, I'm sorry College of Science and Engineering. >> There's a buck. >> And it was a beautiful family tree and eventually it grow into a tropical rain forest because the repercussions of the investment innovations and in the expertise coming out of the, the college was so huge. >> Yes. >> And it keeps spawning and spawning and spawning and I think we have already in Minnesota an enormous network here that can be I hope further exploited. I'm delighted to see what's happening in biomedical engineering for example, which was really founded on innovations coming out of medical school. >> That's [inaudible]. >> To answer. >> [Inaudible]. >> Your question Lori, I think higher education is going to have to change. Despite all the good will and we need to get our message across better and Senator Snodgrass who chairs the appropriations committee is a particular Neanderthal, if not a troglodyte, and only he would be or she would be replaced ta-da, ta-da, ta-da, ta-da. You know, the truth is what's happening all across America, the balance, the budgets are being balanced by hiring fewer tenure track and tenured professors, more lecturers, more adjunct professors, more instructors, they teach more, they're not on the research track and they fill up, they fill the classrooms. There are fewer sections of classes, average class size is growing and it's not by a vote of the Board of Regions, it's not because the president approved it, approves of it, but it's because department by department when your budget is cut you're, you're chair of the department and the senior faculty that have to balance the budget. So I, I think we're going to have to say what is the plan B if we can't get to an 18 to 1 student faculty ratio. How would we live with 30 to 1? What would be technology based, what would not be? What would be the large classes, what would be the seminar classes? Do we need the same concept of a major? Do we need three years to get a degree in all cases? I, I think we're going to need some rethinking because, you know, we've been at this a long time and I, these, these, these are long-term systemic trends in higher education and it's true we've done the research, we established the companies, or at least our graduates did, but it's not changing on the ground. And so the question is, I think we need to, to face that reality and some of the answers may not be pleasant. >> I just wanted. >> President Bruininx. >> I just wanted to tell a little story. This is a state with roughly 18 publicly traded Fortune 500 companies, another five or so that are privately held. It is one of the most flourishing business in civic communities you will find anywhere on the globe and we, we knew back in the mid-90s that we had to rebuild the medical schools, the biomedical sciences, we had to invest more in engineering in some of the basic science fields. And it started with the basic science building and the reorganization of the biological sciences first started, I think, by president, the conversation with you two and then when, when Mark became president it was a really big priority. So we wanted to, to get an, an infusion of substantial capital investment in the biomedical sciences and we put together a bold plan to have the state fund $300 million dollars of capital investment to build what we called the biomedical district. And we galvanized the support of our alumni base. We had the university community behind us, the board of regions, you know, we're unanimously in favor of this strategy and I went down to the Minnesota business partnership and I said this is something we need for the future of our state. I didn't take much time to sell them and for the first time in the Minnesota business partnership of history, 106 corporations in the State of Minnesota, they adopted this biomedical discovery district plan, which was close to a half a billion dollars when, all in, as their number one legislative priority. There were no quid pro quos, there was no agreement about what they would get in return. They just knew that that kind of fundamental investment was necessary to change the landscape of the entire State of Minnesota. So I think the part as, as, as Mark Yudof had just said. Part of what we need to do is to change the way we think about the future of higher education. We need to as Peter Drucker said, accept some of the new realities that have actually been underway for at least 20 to 30 years, and begin to think more about how we solve these issues on our own. >> But you know, one of the problems Bob and, and Mark is that clearly you go down this road because we're all practical and we have to live with whatever we've got. But how along the way do you decide what are the things that you don't compromise? How along the way do you do anything other than, than fall into a pattern which is cheaper and, and frequently more efficient? I, I don't doubt that there are other ways of doing it, but I think there needs to be a pushback. This notion that higher education is a private good rather than a public good is devastatingly bad. There's no way to live with that notion and, and continue and, and to be an effective educational institution. I think we look for efficiencies, more I think we look for collaborations either with the private sector, but also with other institutions of education. >> Absolutely. >> Education is a continuum from kin, from pre-kindergarten to post graduate in, in many ways and we all ought to be working together to say how can we save money by working with Wisconsin? How can save money with working with a state university system? How can we get people better prepared in a K through 12 so that we aren't doing as much remedial work when they come to the university? There are a number of things that are reasonable, but I think as we move into assessing new ways of doing things we also have to have some measures of what it is we won't give up on along the way. >> Ken, [inaudible]. >> Well, yeah. >> [Inaudible]. >> Professor Magrath please. >> No, I was going to ask Ken a question. >> Yeah. >> Your view as to when did this happen that education was seen as a, exclusively as a private good as opposed to both a private and a public and why. >> Yeah. >> Did it happen? >> Well. >> And how could it be reversed. >> I, I have I, I think it happened when we went into a financial crisis a few years ago, which was quite real. Under that kind of circumstances the budgets had to be cut and the university had to take its lumps along with it. But what happened at the time is people, particularly people in the political sphere, wanted to justify what they were doing by more than the fact that we were out of money and so they said it's easy to make argument that anyway this is a private good. And so you recover financially ultimately, but you're left with this philosophical change that higher education. >> Well, you know, it, it's also an ideological mania. I wrote a paper on this. We have more private police officers in America than we have publicly employed police officers. We have largely fought our overseas war with contract soldiers. >> Yeah. >> By some great multiple of Korea. >> Right. >> And other. >> Yeah. >> Other places. We have the, the closed housing developed, gated communities, where they maintain their own streets and they don't have their own power plants and all and, and I can go on the post office, you know, which was a mainstay and God knows they weren't always efficient. >> Right. >> But they've been displaced by private entities. So it is a combination of dem, demographics and it's also ideology. I mean we, we're probably at a point we're almost building more toll roads in America than we are building freeways and if you're in California you go down an unbelievably rickety highway system and you pass places like Microsoft and Apple and, and Intel and all the rest of them and they're like golden par, they're they Emerald City. But the bricks are falling apart on the Yellow Brick Road and so I mean that's, that, that's just the reality. So it's a combination of circumstances. >> Yeah. >> But also it, it has been dramatically overdone the privatizations as if it a nation of greed where we don't understand the public benefits [inaudible]. >> And I'd like to steer the conversation towards the experience of the consumers. We want to think about, not only is how will higher education be sustainable for the sake of this institution's budgets and the ability to pay its employees, but think about its affordability for the students and for the families that, that are enrolled here. President Keller you've been trying to get in this conversation. >> Well, I am going to go on record as the optimist amongst this group because [laughter] I haven't heard a lot of optimism over the past 15 or 20 minutes. We are in a state in which the higher education budget was increased the last biennium and recommendations to do so again exist in the senate and the governor's budget. We are a state where we initiated a 36 million min drive initiative that, that really brings important research dollars to, to the state. So I think there is reason to, to, to see a little bit of, of a silver lining around this cloud. But we have to be more efficient, we have to be more effective, we have to maintain affordability, we have to drive philanthropy for scholarships, we have to do all of those things and, and schools like us across the country have to do that. But I wanted to bring the point to, to the fact that we've talked about our research and our teaching and, and our outreach, but we haven't talked a lot about the, the social responsibility that this institution has, frankly to civilization for our ability to create humanists and artists and musicians who make life worth living. For our ability to educate students to know about themselves and, and understand the world that they're in and the history that got them to where they are today. So that portion of a liberal education, which all of our graduates get in, in some measure or another is, is centrally important and it often gets overlooked in the conversation about, about industry and, and medicine and, and infrastructure. But at the core that educational component is critical for us and it's critical for our society and frankly for our civilization and, and that value is in danger of being eroded away as a consequence of all of the hits we've been taking. >> I, I think you're absolutely right and, and it, it ties into this question of what you do to change. So if you say well let's do more online courses when, when it's the human interaction which really in, in the classroom usually manages. Let's do a three year degree because we can cut out all those extra things that, that don't fit in, in a specific almost quasi vocational way of approaching it. So it's exactly those kinds of points Eric, which I think are the reason why as we move toward efficiencies we don't lose sight of, of what is we won't trade away. >> Yeah. >> I was going to, I'm sorry. >> Go ahead. >> I, I do think that we have, we have not really done a good enough job of engaging the public around the issues of public value. >> I think so. >> And we haven't done a good enough job of showing how and this builds on a number of the conversations or the comments that have been made, we haven't done a good job of showing where the connections between and among the university and other entities in our society have really created value. So right now we have in this community a growing achievement gap rather than a shrinking achievement gap. It starts at birth and gets worse with, with age and we also have a shrinkage of college age students and so the very people we are going to need the most to fuel the future of Minnesota's economy, the national economy, and to put the nation in a competitive position, are the very students who are doing least well in our educational system. I, I take particular pride as a long-term member of this institution in recognizing that this university has made that the highest priority for as long as I can remember and it's at least 47 years now that I've been in this state. But I think we need to even deepen it that conversation. Every single president on this stage has made that a priority at some point in his administration, but making sure that we don't pull up the ladder behind us I think is one of the most, biggest imperatives we have. >> Well. >> As, as a university. >> Indeed, some of you oversaw a great expansion in financial aid for students. >> Absolutely. >> But you also saw a great increase, some of you, into the tuition rate. >> The, can I respond to that because we have a lot of hysteria and the newspapers feed this by the way [laughter]. The New York Times finally got it right in one article, I thought once every 20 years that's pretty good. >> Not Lori, she gets it right. >> Lori gets it right. First of all less hysteria more analysis. So the truth is the average debt of a public university student is under $30,000.00, it's not chump change, but it's not the end of the world. It's probably about the same as the new car you'll buy upon graduation. And when you look at the differentials in income, it's 10, 20 thousand dollars a year, three quarters of a million, a million dollar lifetime change, I wish it were less, I wish it were closer to zero, but it's not. Everyone gets hysterical over the, over the sticker price, but the reality is it's the net price. I mean I come from a family where you would be banned from the family for paying the sticker price for your new Honda [laughter]. We would be so ashamed of you. >> That's right. >> Right. So 60 70 percent of the students have financial aid. At the University of California tuition is $12,000.00, the average net tuition is six. Some people pay zero, some people pay 12, but that, that's the truth. Second thing, the financial aid system is terribly broken. Every year we, we argue about the Pell Grants, $30 billion or so, and always want to cut the poor students back. We actually probably spend more money on tax credits and deductions than we do on Pell Grants. It now goes up to $180,000.00. You're probably talking about three times the average family income in the United States, I don't know about Minnesota. What I would say is you need a totally different system. If I had my way, pick your number, but every family under $200,000.00 a year would pay no tuition at all and then you would have a tax later on in life and if you went into certain lines of work you wouldn't have to pay it back, if you're in between jobs as a Ph.D. and you're doing some menial work, we wouldn't charge your income. We need to change it and Australia and Britain have done it. >> Yes. >> It's perfectly possible. So we need to be realistic about the numbers and we need a brand new financial aid system that takes care of the poor, expands it to the middle class, which is losing out at the moment, and has a sensible repayment system. >> I, I think this is one of the areas where we could hit a homerun relatively, in a relatively easy way. It's going to be hard to sell politically, but this university, for example, has the prominent scholarship and you, you have added to it since you've, you've come into office. So you take a Pell Grant, a state grant program which is very strong in Minnesota and you, you've argued it should get stronger. >> Yes, I have. >> And I agree with that and then we, for low and moderate income students you get the promise scholarship here at any of the campuses at the University of Minnesota. And you can also have private scholarships that, that, that are combined. But for a low income student attending any campus at the University of Minnesota in this system, you actually have a free tuition fee scholarship pat the lowest level and according to the office of higher education research, the, the lowest cost four year institutions in the State of Minnesota are here at the University of Minnesota. This campus with its highest cost profile when you think about the engineering and health and science degrees that are more abundant here than they are in many other places. So I think that's one part of the, the puzzle, but the other is we need a more sensible conversation about debt, student debt. The student debt conversation is totally wrong as you read it in the public press. It makes no difference that, that student debt is equal to $1.2 trillion dollars like credit cards. Credit cards are for short-term purposes, education is a lifetime investment. That's, that's a trivial kind of comparison and if we don't get beyond that we'll never get to the sensible conversation that I think we need as a country and the National Defense Education Act of 1958 that many of us studied under, if we work in, in a profession after we graduated, part of that loan was forgiven. In, in Australia when I was there in 1986, they were having student demonstrations and students walking out because the Australian government was going to charge $300.000.00 a year when I was sending, my wife and I were sending a kid to Dartmouth. >> Ouch. >> You know, of all places. He came back and studied at the University of Minnesota I might add, but anyway. The, the point being now Australia has an income contingent repayment plan. Secondly, the debt that students have today is no different in terms of the burden they feel in repaying that debt than it was a generation ago and that's not reported in the press, but it is, it is reported in some very, very powerful analysis by the Brookings Institution. >> Bob, Bob let me. >> And partly because of. >> I'm sorry. >> Interest, just I'll finish this quickly. Partly because of interest rates, but mostly because the, the, the debt that people pay back is extended over a longer period of time. And most of the most rapid, the most, the most rapid growth in debt has been among the highest earners in our society. >> Well that's an interesting point. >> Bob, now I don't, I don't want to. >> [Inaudible]. >> Give you cardiac arrest, I agree with everything you just said. When I. >> Well that's good. >> A different question because you mentioned it earlier. >> Yeah. >> It's about you said that we should educate the public about the public good of higher education. I'd be very curious if you could tell us how does one really do this or how would you try to do it if you were in charge. >> Well I, I, I actually think, I've, I think everyone on this stage has tried it in different ways and we've been working at it for years and I think the most powerful way to tell, you know, the value or sell the value or convince people of the value of higher education. First of all, the general public thinks that higher education is fundamentally important to their future and the future of their children. They're not just, they're not quite sure that they're getting their money's worth if you look at the public opinion polls. I think the most powerful way to do it is to tell stories and have those stories backed up with real data. So we did a return on investment study that has been continued. >> You did. >> And, and showed that, you know, with a conservative economic model this university for every state dollar returns $13.00 into the state's economy. >> I suspect President Kaler is taking notes on some of these things because he has to appear before a conference committee in a day or two, that will be asking for some of these, this information. What other advice would you have for him as he goes to that legislative session? >> Lori, [inaudible] is a great problem that, that there's so little understanding of how the university budget functions. >> Yeah. >> I faced a situation where, where people will take the entire university budget and divide it by the number of students and say it's awfully expensive to educate our students at the University of Minnesota. Well the university at that time received about 25 percent of its budget from the State of University. The faculty generated 3 or 400 million dollars a year in competitive grants. >> Yeah. >> The university has a number of self. >> Fifteen. >> Self-financing activities and it has a, it has a lot of generous donors, raises fairly respectable amounts of, of money. But there is very little understanding of this. I run into people who complain because they have to pay for athletic tickets. Well we pay for the athletic program, no you don't. And, and but they have this profound misunderstanding and, and I think it's very urgent that we try to overcome this misunderstanding because we are not going to get a reasonable discussion unless we have some basic understanding of how the budget actually functions. >> Lori, I wanted to come back to the debt conversation. >> Yes. >> That, that Mark started because it's actually worse than that. Only in this particular conversation do we use the word average in this weird way. The average debt is under $30,000.00 for the students who have debt. >> Right. >> The 37 percent of Minnesota undergraduates who graduate debt free, 37 percent, they don't get factored in. And that's really important because as you begin conversations with communities in which there are a lot of first generation college students, parents don't know how this works. It's a whole lot more frightening to think of a $30,000.00 debt than it is the fact that you can come tuition free if you're from a low income. >> That's a good point. >> Family and we've got to get that narrative corrected in the, in the newspapers as well. >> You know, the other thing Eric is simplicity matters in this area too. What you said is absolutely so, but when I was at the University of California, it took me a long time to get this done. We did a program where we did a guarantee if the family makes under $80,000.00 in annual income you just bring your tax return in, you pay no tuition period. And it was sort of like, I'm a lawyer, it was sort of like a surety program. You had to apply for your Pell Grants and the Cal Grants and the ROT, the ROTC grants or whatever else you were interested, the rotary clubs and so forth. But it, it sells when you have clarity. Part of the problem here is we discourage poor kids. If you are a strong, poor student in comparison with a mediocre affluent student, the mediocre affluent student is four times as likely to go to college as the poor student. >> Yeah. >> And there are all sorts of reasons for that. I mean, you know, there may be poverty in the home, there may be all sorts of issues, under preparation in the high schools. But I'm convinced one of them is the lack of clarity. It, it, we, we don't need these complex formulas, we need clarity. If you're under this income you go for free. That is the University of Minnesota promise or the University of California or whatever and, and just say it and don't let the, if I may say the bean counters, who say what about this exception and that exception, it's not important. The clarity of message is more important than the minor injustices that occur by having a blanket rule. >> And have you seen the [inaudible] form lately [laughter]? >> Everyone has seen the [inaudible] before it began. >> No, no. >> No, I mean. >> President Hasselmo. >> Well Lori, you know, these financial issues obviously are tremendously important, but I think also the, we should return at some point to, to attitudes and changing attitudes and changing politics and I've been puzzling this because I have felt that there has been this, this wave of anti-intellectualism in the country. And that the universities somehow have ended up on the sidelines in, in this whole debate. I mean if you had the, this overheated debate of climate change and the climate change deniers. We have vaccination, we have creation signs, we have a whole plethora of issues here and I've been wondering if the internet, this marvelous instrument for information, misinformation and disinformation whether we have got new intellectual environment because of the internet and that somehow we and the universities have to, you know, we have to direct ourselves to this massive flow of mis and disinformation and it's systematic and sometimes well financed. And that also raises the question have we somehow failed in liberal education in providing students with an ability at critical thinking? Do we need to look back at ourselves again and say, now what can we do in our educational process to deal with this, this attitude change and the rampant spread of, of mis and disinformation? >> Well that's all interesting and, and I would, what we're seeing this year at the Minnesota legislature in the Minnesota house is a distinction being drawn between funding for the MNSCU system and the University of Minnesota with the university fairing much more poorly in that budget. And that made me want to ask our Philadelphia lawyer. >> Yes. >> President Mark Yudof. >> You're [inaudible]. >> About constitutional autonomy. Whether this university is seen as somehow different in the political sense because its board of region stands almost as a separate branch of government under our state constitution. >> Well constitutional autonomy I think is interesting. Let me say first, on the whole I think it's very positive because the states that I think of that have had some of the great successes like California and Minnesota, have had constitutional autonomy and I think it works best when it imposes a sort of self-restraint on the legislature. So they, I remember in a number of bills, particularly in California where they're doing some screwball thing and they just said we're making them do it, but the University of California you need to think about it. And I would agree to do that for 30 40 seconds [laugher] and, and, but I mean you can drink too much of this Kool-Aid. I mean at the end of the day what, first of all you, you can't have autonomy in all areas. You can't suspend the civil rights acts of the human rights provisions in, in Minnesota and so forth. You can't engage in employment discrimination under federal or state law and I can go on. You can't violate the Fair Labor Standards Act. So it's, it's never been real autonomy from all the laws of the, of the state or and so forth. But the other thing is they ultimately control your budget these people and they can, you know, if you get out of control on tuition or you do something they really don't, so it's, it's, it, it gives you one more arrow in your quiver. It's useful, but don't get drunken with power on this because you can misuse it and it'll come back to haunt you. >> I think you're right about that we, you live in a state where it, that sounds arrogant if you assert that kind of difference. We actually had a constitutional referendum, I can't remember the year it was in, in which the legislature put as a referendum the question of our autonomy which they worded as follows. They said, "Shall the University of Minnesota be subject to law". >> Oh my goodness. [ Laughter ] >> It failed only because there weren't enough people voting [laughter]. >> That's an interesting proposition. >> Yeah, yeah. >> I like that [laughter]. >> But it does mean in some respects this institution is more a master of its own destiny and that made me want to ask about the particular role of the university faculty and ask President Bruininx who was part of this faculty for a long, long time to talk about the, the role of the faculty in addressing some of these big questions we're talking about. About the attitudes about higher education, about the I, about the messages we convey to the public, about what, what happens here. What would you, how would you describe the role of the faculty going forward? >> Well that's, it's, I'm sure glad we had the meeting with the members of the faculty senate for lunch because after my, my answer will be inadequate in relationship to the question. But I really think the faculty of a great research university and most other colleges and universities I would argue are really the guardians of the mission. They are, they really guarantee in, in a very fundamental way that the university lives up to the values and expectations that we're, we're a part of founding this institution seven, seven years before we became a state. And the second thing that I think is really fundamentally important about the role of the faculty is, is they are the, the defenders of academic freedom. We were just talking about constitutional autonomy and, and to a very large extent constitutional autonomy gives you more ability to protect academic freedom, that may be one of its most important values. And, and people say, well why do you need to worry about defending academic freedom, we have the First Amendment and so forth. But they're, every person on this stage can probably give five or six examples of real threats to academic freedom that have occurred during our terms and I can remember going to the agricultural commodity group meetings early in the ethanol debates because one of our faculty members had published an article that, a very fine analysis, David Tillman, of the, the real energy yield from ethanol production from corn. David was in Japan and he wrote me a frantic e-mail, he said, oh, I'm so sorry I wish I could be there to help you defend me in front of the corn growers. So I walked into the meeting and they said, can't you fire this guy, I mean we're trying to get the farm bill reauthorized and this is at least a chance to and get injecting some real funding in, in Minnesota. I said, no, he has academic freedom and let me tell you what it means. And after about 15 to 20 minutes people sat back and said, oh that makes a lot of sense, and we started talking about our dismal football record [laughter], but anyway at that time it's. >> It's better now. >> Under President Kaler it's really moved on up I would say [laughter]. So, yeah the so I, I really think those are the, the two primary things. There's a really strong culture of academic governance that includes a central role of faculty in really shaping the, the, the long-term destiny of institutions like this and I think on the whole it works well. I think there are some issues that we ought to be mindful of, yet often it makes it more difficult, that is the way we make decisions, to respond quickly to some of the threats and issues that people have raised. I think public institutions have some very special challenges. If you look at what defines the quality and the excellence of the university, it is the impact and the work of the faculty in a very, very fundamental way and once you develop a very good reputation as a faculty member from the University of Minnesota, you get lots of offers from places like Princeton and Harvard where they have big endowments that make it very difficult for us to keep to retain people. >> President Yudof spoke about some of the ways that this institution, other higher education institutions may have to change and they tended to be about the ways that education is provided in classroom, larger class sizes, more online learning. How can faculty sustain quality when, in the face of those kinds of changing demands? >> I think it is very challenging. By the way I agree with everything Bob said, but it fits in, Ken reminded me, when I the first time I faced an unhappy medical faculty there [laughter], I looked out and they were giving me all sorts of advice and I said, you know, it's not as lonely at the top as I was hoping [laughter] and, and I still sort of feel though you're never lonely for advice if you've got an active faculty senate. >> Yes. >> And so forth and I do think they are the guardians of that and a part of it I, I'm not a revolutionary about this, I'm an evolutionist. I, I think the receptivity of the faculty to online types of offerings or hybrid courses and all, it's really up to them, they're the guardians, I wouldn't do it in a top-down management sort of way. If they're more comfortable with it and their students are, it will evolve that way, you know, and I'm, you know, the three year degrees I'm not in love with that, but they've been known to get by with that in Britain and, and different, you know, pre-college type curriculum and so forth. So I think, I think we need to tape the faculty creativity. My complaint is just wishing that the student faculty ratio would go down when over 10, 20, 30 years it doesn't happen, it's growing. >> It's gone up. >> And, and we're hiring more and more lecturers. And by the way, some of them are extremely able and good people, so I'm not knocking that, but, but that's my, I think we need, they need to seriously consider. Then they need to, to guard it and sometimes we're not guarding it, sometimes it's faculty privilege, it just is. We've always done it this way and they don't want to think about changing it and, but you know, we can't do it without them and so I think it'll have to evolve from the, from the faculty senates. >> President Magrath. >> Bob, could I push you a bit on the ac, I agree with what you said about the faculty [inaudible] period, no qualifications on my part. I still struggle with the academic freedom versus the First Amendment because I sort of think freedom is for all of us and I understand what you said, but I don't think I really agree that academic freedom is the key. To me it's the freedom of the First Amendment and the freedom to pursue truth and you're going to argue. >> Well. >> That academic freedom protects us in some way that. >> Well. >> The First Amendment does not. >> Let me. >> No, no. >> No. >> Explain a little bit here. Academic freedom today is being squeezed from two ends. On one end the general First Amendment freedom for government employees has expanded. The, the AUP statement in 1960 predates the incorporation of the First Amendment through the Bill of Rights and made applicable to states. It arose at the time when essentially there were no protections for faculty. So a professional group decided to do that. So over all those years with [inaudible] and homes and the Warren Court and all it's expanded. So the truth is you can't fire a faculty member for giving a speech, you know, out in the mall, but you can't fire a postal employee either for giving a speech on the mall. So this, so we have a general, generally greater protection. On the other side, the courts have been increasingly hostile, I think that's an appropriate word to use, to academic freedom as involving special rights for faculty members. That's just descriptively true and I won't get into the technicalities, but it's the government expression doctrine, the Garcetti case, that most faculties have been very critical of that, that case. So I would say if it's alive at all is mostly alive in the, in the regent's rules and the codes of universities, which relatively vibrant, but it's not vibrant in the Federal Courts as a freestanding doctrine. The third thing is you can debate this. I, I still think it provides some protection, but it's only an increment of protection of beyond general First Amendment rights and, you know, I don't think it's that costly to, to have these codes on guaranteeing academic freedom. The faculty believes passionately in it, I mean I just don't understand the argument for cutting back, I would not cut back at the institutional level. >> Yeah. >> President Hasselmo [inaudible]. >> I really, I really believe that the, that academic freedom is very important in addition to the First Amendment protections because, you know, you have these very specific cases of the exercise of the freedom of speech that have to do with the freedom of, of research and, and scholarship and artistic expression. And I think that it, the, the provision of academic freedom provides an environment, a climate on campus that I think is very important because it's more concrete than the general First Amendment protection. So I really feel very strongly that we have to safeguard academic, you know, academic freedom because of the environment that it creates. >> But Nils, maybe I'm just saying in the courts there's very little of that. >> Yeah. >> In the, in the institutional practices there's a great deal of it and in my judgment it's okay, it's fine, it's positive. >> Yeah, I think it's more about culture, it's about preserving and celebrating a culture of inquiry and protection of, of ideas and debate. >> Yeah. >> And it's more I think in that sense, in that spirit that I think it's vitally important of the future of America. >> Yeah. >> And Lori, to come back to my earlier point about attitudes. We have these highly financed national campaigns against, you know, certain findings of science. >> Yes. >> And I'm concerned that, that they are going to gain strength and if the universities don't. >> And I think. >> Keep their guards up. >> Yes President Keller. >> Against those. >> No, I think. >> Systematic campaign. >> I think that's exactly where the issue is, it's in the context of your professional role where you are, where people try to intimidate your findings, where academic freedom goes a little beyond what First Amendment. First Amendment protects a lot of political speech, it's important and I think it's right and, but, but that provides most of it. What is less obvious is protecting people in, in taking unpopular views with respect to their professional. >> I don't want to derail this, but I think and correct if I'm wrong and I could be, you know, we used to say that academic freedom, we need a tenure and the tenured professor had academic freedom. So if you're a tenured associate, full professor, you had academic freedom. On the other hand, if you were an assistant professor, you weren't tenured yet, did you or did you not have academic freedom? Now it's probably all changed, but at one time the argument was that you have to have tenured professors and they had academic freedom, but which meant that the others did not have exactly the full freedom. >> Well let. >> Maybe it's never was that way but I think it was. >> What about the future of tenure and I look at President Hasselmo because I do remember that [laughter], I do remember an issue. >> [Inaudible]. >> What, what about the future of tenure? >> I, I think it's very important, but it is tenure is protection for doing your science, your scholarship and your artistic work, it is not protection for incompetence and for sloughing off on the job. >> We have other protection for that. >> I think that it's very important that very important that universities take on in spite of the procedural intricacies take on the task of making sure that tenure does not become a protection for, for that kind of non-performance. It has to be, you have to adhere to its core, which is protection to do your science, your scholarship and your artistic expression. >> I, you know, I, I agree with that, but what I would say is, you know, this is really for the faculty not so much the administration, I mean I, I think and I think sometimes the faculties and I'm not talking about Minnesota, but across the country, fall down on the job. >> Yeah. >> They're supposed to police it, they are professionals and they know what's in, you know, you can be in the geography department, but it doesn't mean you should be a leading proponent of the flat earth and [laughter], and you know, I mean, but that shouldn't be an administrator, that should be a faculty to take up that question of competence. I mean there's all sorts of levels of competence and it shouldn't be the administrators against the faculty, it should be better and the way the statement is written, the traditional statement is, the faculty needs to police itself, but what you don't want is the legislative committee voting on someone's competencies. You really frankly don't even want the president to do that, you want the faculty to police itself and in, in many places they're not, you know, it's, it's touchy and often they don't do it effectively. >> But it's very important that we have effective procedural protections, but it should not be an endless process. >> Yeah. >> And I have been through some of those processes and they literally take years sometimes in order to be completed and I don't know if they can be simplified and still be effective, but I think that we need to look at those procedures carefully to be sure that they are effective. >> Let me shift gears folks and, and bring up some of the questions we had from this good audience. A topic that recurs in a number of these questions is diversity. I have read recently that comments on a national level that higher education is actually becoming more of a wedge between racial groups in our society with, with elite universities and private schools becoming more the, the place where affluent people and White people especially are educating their young people and, and other less qual, community colleges, other schools becoming dominated by people of color. This is not the kind of, of goal we, many of us have had for higher education's role in society. How can this institution play a stronger role in bringing about more diversity both on this campus and in Minnesota more generally? >> Well Lori, you know that you cannot have an excellent university if you don't have a diverse university. We have to bring students and faculty and staff to campus that look like the population of Minnesota. And there are a couple of ways to do that. One is obviously financial aid for students from poor backgrounds who are disproportionately people of color that can help. Making a community welcoming that can help, but at the end of the day we also have to provide opportunities in K through 12 and pre-K through 12 and to close the, the opportunity gap and the achievement gap that Bob mentioned earlier. And to do that we can turn the very powerful research engine of the University of Minnesota into that problem whether it's educational psychology principal training, teacher training, all of those things can be applied and we need to do, we're doing it. We need to do more of it, we need to do it better. >> Does any? >> And Lori, we have not only economic barriers of a socioeconomic kind, but we have intellectual barriers because research of, at least as I read the newspapers, indicates that the, the deficit, the intellectual deficit starts early in socioeconomically deprived environments and we have to reach all the way down in educational reform in order to try to come to grips with that issue. >> You're right. >> Well funny you should mention that. >> [Inaudible]. >> We have a questioner who notes that. >> Yeah. >> Our governor. >> Get a word [inaudible]. >> Mark Dayton wants to spend a great deal of money on four year old preschool for all is that a better investment than investing money on higher education if it comes down to preschool versus a higher ed bill? >> Let me, I was once asked this question by the, the I think senate higher education committee whether we should invest $5.00 at the University of Minnesota or $5.00 in the education of young kids, I said put it into the education of young kids it will have a much better payoff for society. And then I quickly added that we needed money as well [laughter]. But, but anyway, I, I really, I think we're having in Minnesota a very, very healthy debate at the moment, but the debate is, is changed in a very fundamental sense and that is, we're no longer talking about whether education early in life is a good thing. >> We know that. >> Yeah we, we did at one time, but it's. >> Yeah. >> It's more of a discussion about what's the best way to give young kids who grow up in poverty the best possible opportunity and I don't know exactly how that debate will come out, but I do, I've, I was on a committee where we felt that targeting scholarships to low income kids would have the best payoff because you could start earlier in life. If you try to educate all four year olds it's going to cost you about $400 million a year, that's a huge amount of investment. And we're probably not going to get there even with a $2 billion budget surplus. So I really believe that the, the achievement gap really starts before birth, but fundamentally it, it, it starts at birth and grows. The, the kids coming from middle class families, according to researchers in child development, have a working vocabulary at kindergarten that's about four times better than the working vocabulary of kids who grow up in poverty and when you start early in your school career with that kind of, you know, deficit it's pretty hard to catch up and the deficit grows with time. So I think the conversation we're having now is the right one and I think we really ought to put much more into the education of young people. >> President Mark Yudof. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> I just have a few comments. Remember Head Start? >> Sure. >> We still have it. There is almost no evidence that Head Start on any criteria worth focusing on is successful. I mean that's just evidence in study after study. Some lower incarceration rates of black females in the 11th grade, I mean and I'm not, there's all sorts of reasons, the implementation is uneven the transition from the third grade on is uneven. I mean I'm not getting into, you know, but there is the Nobel laureate at University of Chicago, Heckman I think that's his name. >> Yeah, James, James Heckman. >> And, and there's all sorts of evidence he's put together that a well-functioning pre-K program is, can really be terrific. So, you know, you have to be careful, all pre-K programs no, ones with a certain design and so forth as Bob was saying, I think yes. In terms of diversity I think I just have two things that I would add to this, you need to keep track of your percentage of students with Pell Grants. That is, I mean it was a disgrace most of the Ivy League for a long time. The University of California is 35 40 percent Pell Grant recipients. I think, I can't remember exactly. >> What. >> Eric, under 50,000, 45,000 in income? >> Yeah. >> It's a good indicator of whether you're reaching poor kids or not and so that's, that I think is important and then my final comment is I think we need affirmative action and have needed it for a while for a whole variety of reasons, that's a whole other discussion. But I, I don't think socioeconomic integration is a substitute if you want racial and ethnic diversity, that's my personal opinion. >> President Kaler, do you happen to know off the top of your head what the percentage of undergraduates here with Pell Grants are? >> I think it's about 23 percent. >> About 23 percent. >> But I'll check don't quote me. >> Okay. >> But it's healthy and it's, it's in the range across the big 10 and, of course, a couple big 10 schools educate more Pell eligible students than the entire Ivy League combined. >> President. >> Eric, Eric let me ask you a question about on, on the diversity side. What you want, which we all want, which we need, what about the linkages with the Minnesota community colleges, my observation actually is community colleges are very diverse, the product is not always educationally good, but it's not always bad and obviously I'm on the side of taking in people who want to succeed and giving them a chance they have to meet, we talked about it a bit this morning, tough exit stands. They got to do the work. I mean I don't care how qualified they appear to be when they come in, but we all want them to be really qualified when they leave. But community colleges have a lot of diversity in most places and I'm sure that's true here, what's, what's your comment on that? >> So we are a little bit different from most of our peers in the sense that we admit an entering class of about 5,500 students now, but a transfer class of about 3,000 students. So most transfer classes of our peers are much smaller than that. And the leading source of transfer students is Normandale Community College. So the MNSCU two year schools are an open feeder to us and, and that does help in this diversity. Conversation also helps in affordability. In the other end of this affordability point as well is the great improvement and it's been linear I think from, from Peter to me in our four year graduation rate. When you build student debt the much more substantially is when you show up and pay me for year five or year six of your undergraduate education. So getting that efficiency up helps us move students through, minimizes debt and opens opportunities for others and that's been important progress over the 40 years that are represented here. >> Let's go with another theme here that is relevant to what you're going through this year at the capital, the difference between greater Minnesota and the Twin Cities, which is kind of has a political tinge to it this year. What principles are important to maintain strong campuses both in greater Minnesota and the flagship at the university? How do you do that kind of balance? I'm going to look at Mark Yudof because he had that kind of issue in California, as well as here. >> I think I would have deferred to one of my more deeply Minnesota rooted colleagues before I get into trouble. >> Okay [laughter]. >> But I'm okay on that issue. [ Laughter ] >> I think you won them over with pancakes as I recall. >> Pancakes are greater in greater Minnesota. >> The, the question. >> I can confess to that. >> How, how should, what principle are important to maintaining strong campuses both in greater Minnesota and here at the flagship Twin Cities campus? All you had to wrestle with that. >> Well. >> Well let me take a, a stab at that [laughter]. >> They don't seem to be eager. >> It's, it's. >> To talk about that. >> Sitting there like a little bit of uneaten [inaudible] gear that nobody really wants [laughter]. I'll try. We obviously are committed to our campuses in, in greater Minnesota, our extension outreach offices, all that we do. But it is an important part of the, the conversation politically because we are perceived rightly or wrongly as a Twin Cities centric organization. But, you know, we've all been to the [inaudible] dinner, we've all been to Farm Fest, I hope we've all been to Farm Fest. >> Of course. >> And it's important for us to be out and be part of those, those conversations and again it's a matter of getting our message out as I mentioned earlier about what, what our veterinary medicine people are doing now in terms of, of avian flu. So while MNSCU does have a much more geographically distributed set of, of campuses, we're important in greater Minnesota too. >> But I think there are things that are really outstanding, the gym at Morris. >> Yeah. >> A public liberal arts college in a rural setting is really something to be very proud of. I think the answer to that question is, is a question of focus with a term that I've been associated with before. It's a question of picking, of picking the areas that we can be, excel in, in the state. So Morris holds to a liberal arts education. Crookston holds to its, its role in, in the agricultural sector. Those make sense. The, the closest to a very broad scale university is, of course, Duluth, but again if we make choices about what can be accomplished in, in, in these settings rather than trying artificially to do things which couldn't possibly succeed in those settings, I think we have the chance at having an institution which recognizes the comparative advantages of each of the campuses and acts on that. >> President Magrath. >> Yeah, but, you know because [inaudible] did that too until, you know [laughter]. >> Yes, that was on President Hasselmo's [inaudible]. >> Touche. >> But yes touche and I promised it will be closed. My, my serious question Eric is, but and you eluded to extension, their faculty, they're a part of the University of Minnesota. They are in every county in this state. Is it possible to get people, including the agents themselves to publicize the fact, maybe that's already done, we are, that they are part of the U as much as the great important stuff that happens here in the Twin Cities? >> You know, we try to get that message out U4H is a university program and we have a lot of, of connections, but sometimes in the sound bites that, that govern our world that gets compressed in [inaudible]. >> Yeah. >> President Hasselmo wants to. >> Lori, Lori. >> [Inaudible]. >> Yeah. >> Lori, I think the, the key is collaboration and I must say that I was very heartened by the willingness to collaborate the university, the state's university. >> Right. >> Community colleges and private colleges work very well together and there was, you know there was even some agreement on commitment to focus [laughter]. If you're going to talk about [inaudible] we can talk about commitment. [ Laughter ] >> And I, I. >> This is getting dangerous. >> The gloves comes off. >> You need to build on that and especially with the community colleges, we had a, a nice and biotic relationship there and I think we still do. >> Yeah. >> Where we have even joint four year degrees, where rather than having community colleges offer four year degrees, the university added two years and we did that in some of the more applied undergraduate degrees. And I think that we have, in Minnesota, there's a spirit of collaboration here that I think we need to continue to build on, but we have to watch duplication and when you have essentially a university campus that looks just like a community college and the technical college campus 14 miles away, you have to try to do something about it. So we have to be committed to a state-wide mission, but it has to be in collaboration and selective. >> I think that's right. >> Yes [inaudible]. >> I just, I just want to make a couple of quick points. President Hasselmo mentioned that the collaboration across systems. We, we don't really celebrate a lot of the achievements that we've accomplished in this area. Back in 1988, we developed the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum and that allows you, every community college student knows that if you take that transfer curriculum over the first two years you can transfer to any public four year institution or private four year institution in the state, I think we even got some agreement with some of the privates. But one of the points I think I would make is, is that the University of Minnesota coordinate campuses are, are really linked very strongly to the research and graduate education resources of the entire University of Minnesota. Extension is now regionalized and these campuses, Duluth, Rochester, Morris and Crookston are regional hubs that now include an agricultural research station, they include the University of Minnesota extension office for that particular region. In Crookston you've got the rural health association that really deals with northeast Minnesota issues. And so increasingly, we've tried to bring the resources of a region into a closer juxtaposition to these campuses. And if you look at the Federal Reserve studies that talk about how you sort of create regional economies, you know, that that flourish in less, less populated areas. They tend to, they tend to operate in hubs like Wilmer or in, in Crookston or in Duluth or in Rochester and so the university has worked really hard and there have been some real gains in the last couple of years with President Kaler to keep bringing these resources together and then with the benefit of technology you can keep them all connected in, in a very vibrant and productive way. >> Well you get close to. >> Bob [inaudible]. >> Go ahead, go ahead President Magrath. >> It's so good what you said I totally agree, absolutely. I want to say something that's got nothing to do with what you said, but there was a person who once was a prospect to be president of the University of Minnesota and he was asked about the coordinate campuses and he said, Oh come on they are the subordinate campuses". >> Ooh. >> And he, he didn't get the job and that's why. >> He didn't get the job no [laughter]. >> That's why I got it anyway. >> I think. >> Lori. >> The surgeon general's admonition to be injurious to one's health to. >> Yes. >> Articulate that in Minnesota. >> Lori, Lori. >> President Hasselmo yes. >> Lori, don't forget the private colleges. Minnesota has a, a marvelous. >> Yeah. >> Array of excellent. >> [Inaudible]. >> Private colleges and the university collaborates with those private colleges too. >> [Inaudible]. >> For example, in offering courses in majors that they do not offer I believe that for example. >> [Inaudible]. >> Some college, private college offers a degree in architecture, but actually the architecture courses are taken at the University of Minnesota, at least that used to be true at one time. So don't forget in the equation of collaboration that you have those private colleges as well. >> Well point well taken. You're coming close though to a question that I think I may have put to each of you at one point along the way during your presidency. Do we have in Minnesota the, the governance of our systems in a proper array? Have we, have we done a good thing to create MNSCU which happened on, on your watch and, and should the, this governance that we have now with two big systems plus the privates, should that governance model go forward or, or have we or do we still need to do some fixing and tweaking and I'll ask the people on this side of the, of the stage who've been away the longest? Do we have it right in Minnesota with regard to a MNSCU system and a University of Minnesota system? >> I'm sorry, do we have it right? >> Do we have it right that the split that we have in our governance between one system that functions very close to being a state agency, another system that's constitutionally autonomous, the University of Minnesota? >> Well it's not going to change the way it is, but I mean the way it's organized is not likely to be changed and if I were in charge I wouldn't expend a lot of energy trying to change it and I think overall and by a decided margin the system that is the University of Minnesota is working exceptionally well and will continue to work exceptionally well and all the others are important in how they're placed period and there's ultimately, I don't think any competition with the others in any real sense. I wouldn't change it, I think it's fine the way it is. >> Lori, I, I was going to say I was a head of a system in, in Texas. >> Uh-hm. >> Yeah. >> And there are seven systems in Texas. >> Yeah. >> And every campus wants to be like the University of Texas at Austin. >> Austin right. >> And everyone wants to play football like they play football, at least in the old days, and [laughter]. >> Yes. >> And every county, all 254 of them, want an engineering college and a medical school. So I think Minnesota it, it's closer to the California model of tiering. You know, whether it's the exact mix, whether you couldn't have some shift of some MNSCU campuses to the University of Minnesota I, I don't really know and it would be very ideologically charged and politically sensitive. But basically the, I think the structure is a pretty sound one. I mean I, I don't know how you would do much better, but what, what did Clint Eastwood say, a man's not a go to know his limits [laughter]. >> Yeah >> And I just saw that in one of the Dirty Harry movies. >> Yup [laughter]. >> Where I go for my philosophy and [laughter] and you, you need a sense of mission differentiation, that's what I would say is the most important thing, it's not just their separate systems, but you know what are the limits on professional and graduate programs because there's a tendency around the country to waste billions of dollars on institutions that never will succeed, never will be researched [inaudible] universities will not have fine engineering colleges and so forth. So that's what I worry about. >> No, I think you're absolutely. >> Yeah. >> And if any, you know the line you know it, if it ain't broke don't fix it. >> Yeah. >> You know, live it alone. >> Yeah, I think. >> I knew once a governor who said if it ain't broke break it and then anyway [laughter]. >> Or they create systems in order to take the politics out of higher education and you just don't take politics out of. >> Right. >> Higher education. >> Right, that's right. >> It's, and, and I don't. So it doesn't really solve anything, but what you, what you have to have is coordination and collaboration and I think in, in Minnesota we've had even before MNSCU when we had [inaudible] systems, I think we had excellent collaboration. We had the higher education coordinating committee that helped regulate duplication. I think. >> You'll be sad to know that's gone now. >> I know it is gone, but I, I, you need some kind of mechanism for making sure that you don't just get this wild. >> Right. >> Striving for a single goal. >> I think. >> You have to have some kind of coordination, but I don't know that the system merging into huge systems, building up additional bureaucracies is, is the solution for Minnesota. It may well be in other situations, but I think that we can have collaboration and coordination without doing that. >> Yeah, yeah. >> President Keller. >> I think it's, I think that's true and, and that what you need is collaboration and coordination, thinking about these and a lot of what we've said today goes to the issue of using each of the systems for what it can do best. For the president of the University of Minnesota, I think what it requires and all of us have faced it, is sensitivity to the fact that we have several campuses and taking the steps and, and putting the effort into not feeling that we just represent the University of Minnesota Twin Cities, but. >> Yeah. >> Recognizing that we have an obligation in, in the other places, which is better than creating a separate administrative structure to, to produce that recognition. >> Right, right. Some of our audience members would like you to talk about undergraduate education. Somebody here said, it might have been President Yudof or President Bruininx, you cannot have a strong graduate school without a strong undergraduate school. Should the university reconsider its commitment to undergraduate education given all the options that exist and continue to emerge for that kind of education? That be, undergraduate education I'm looking to President Hasselmo because that was a big emphasis in your presidency as I recall. >> I think the University of Minnesota has a very important role in undergraduate education, but it is a special kind of undergraduate education, both in terms of some of the disciplines that are offered, some of the specialties can, can be offered. But also I think in terms of the preparation and the demand of students and the advantage is that the students who do prepare can come and work in the context of faculty or science, active scientists, active scholars, active artists and this creates a special kind of opportunity. But in a way I, I think the students have to earn the opportunity to do that particular undergraduate education. It doesn't mean to denigrate any other undergraduate education, we have lots of good undergraduate education in other institutions as well. But Minnesota some, the University of Minnesota has to define an undergraduate experience that has these special qualities and then not look upon that as some kind of nefarious elitism when it is really in the best spirit, I think, of egalitarianism that you give these opportunities to those who are willing to prepare themselves for that kind of experience. >> The kind of changes that President Yudof referred to earlier in the, the way information is, is presented to students that, a lot of that has to do with undergraduate education. Do you see that as an area where there will be a considerable amount of pressure to change? >> Well, you know, I'm not sure. I, I would say first that if you're a public university and you don't do a decent job of undergraduate education you are plum out of luck. >> That's right. >> I mean the people of Minnesota justifiably have expectations and that for the core, basic education that you will do a good job of educating your sons and daughters and you'll have reasonable access and you won't be too expensive and on and on. But if you don't have that then I don't see how you build a graduate programs and the research programs and so forth. So I think it's almost a moral obligation to get that right. You know, will it change? It probably will. I mean I, I think there probably will be more competency based learning. You know, some people can do introductory Spanish in five weeks, it takes me three years and there's no reason seat time should be a complete substitute as, for levels of learning that could change. As I said, there might be more technology based learning, but when the faculty and the students are ready for it. I would like to see more writing, more small classes and then one other thing, a part of the revolution in America, part of the anti-intellectualism that Nils talked about is what I would call commodification of knowledge. Some people have gotten this crazy idea that if you memorize dates in American history or body parts or something, that you really accomplished something. Most learning that's worthwhile is cognitive. I mean I would prefer my surgeon took anatomy don't misunderstand me [laughter], but you know, when you go to an automobile mechanic, a bank teller, a physician, no matter who you go to, you want someone who can solve problems, who can think and so I would like to see more emphasis on cognitive skills in the undergraduate environment. >> Lori. >> Okay. >> Mark you would, wouldn't we all. >> [Inaudible]. >> All of us are division one research university types yet I think I'm right in saying I would not and none of you would want to be at a university that did not have a huge strong undergraduate base of students. It's not a university if you don't have students of all kinds, but certainly undergraduate students. >> Yeah, President Bruininx. >> Lori. >> Wants to say something. >> [Inaudible]. >> I, I think this is one of the, the best good news stories at the University of Minnesota, not just on this campus, but across the entire system. Graduation rates were way too low when President Hasselmo called for an undergraduate initiative. President Yudof with his background in Philadelphia law decided that if you could take credits for free above 13 you remember that? >> Yeah. >> I remember the meeting very well. You could, you could take as many credits as you wanted above 13 for free at the University of Minnesota and within a short period of time students were taking about an average of two credits more every semester and they were on track to graduate. I did on the back of an envelope a calculation the other day, in the last 10 years the graduation rates have doubled on, on this campus and on most of the other campuses and that saved parents and kids about $78 million in tuition costs and it enabled the university because more students were graduating on a timely basis to serve more students and the number of degrees granted I think has gone up very substantially as well in, in the last two or three years I think gone up quite dramatically. So I think you, you can't be a great university without a good undergraduate education for a lot of reasons because when people say, is this a good place? They think, they actually think more about it being a good place if their sons and daughters are getting a good undergraduate education than if they're getting a great medical degree to be honest with you. And the general population I think that's the case. >> Lori, let's talk a little bit about. >> President [inaudible]. >> [Inaudible]. >> That's [inaudible] the reaction when, when, when we did raise the preparation requirements at the University of Minnesota, I got a lot of calls from superintendents around the state saying like thank you for doing. >> That's [inaudible]. >> You know, it made our task easier to get through to our students that they have to prepare themselves in order to be able to get into the University of Minnesota. >> Yes. >> That's commitment to focus. >> [Inaudible]. >> That is commitment to focus [laughter]. >> Yeah, that's commitment to focus exactly. >> There it is, there it is [laughter]. >> Don't you want to talk about [inaudible] [laughter]? Talk about it after [inaudible]. >> President Kaler wanted another. >>Sure one, one. >> Yes. >> Final point perhaps on this is, is just the development of talent, educated students. If you can't come to the University of Minnesota as an undergraduate and go to one of our sister schools, you might actually meet your spouse and stay there. The converse is also true. You come here, some people leave and come back, it took me 30 years to do that, but those things matter and so we want to build the, the educated workforce and population and cultural activities that we need. We need a really strong undergraduate program. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Around the country completion of a higher education degree has become kind of a big issue with a lot of schools suffering the low attrition rates. Say a little bit more about how you cracked that graduate, graduation rate nut and, and what should be done going forward to make it even better? >> Well we did Bob and Mark and others did all the work, so I will talk about it [laughter]. The, it was just a very planful exercise and you, you begin to focus on the component parts. For example, if you don't come back for year two you're unlikely to graduate in year four. So let's work on first and second year retention. What does that mean? Well that means better programs in the residence halls, it means about getting more students into the residence halls. So you can argue whether it's a cause or a consequence, but it is true that if you're in a res hall you retain at a higher rate into the second year. And then you make sure that the courses are available that are needed on a pathway and you make sure that the students are getting advised about career and, and, and diploma curriculum decisions appropriately. If you made a C in organic chemistry for the third time, medical school is probably not in your future, so let's find something that will take advantage of the talents that you have as a young person. So those things and, and a bunch of others. Financial aid, so that students don't have to work as many hours. All of those are, are components of the mix then and the, the group here at the university over a period of time is executed on that really, really well. >> Lori, it will make the task of the faculty members easier if they do not have to deal with remedial education in the frame framework of their classes. I think one reason we see an increases in the number of, of tenured faculty members and full-time faculty members who teach undergraduate courses may be because of the relief from doing remedial work that really shouldn't be there. >> Right. >> Yes. >> I think. >> President Keller. >> That Bob Bruininx referred to the transfer program from the community colleges, that relieves us in the first two years to offer more electives and, and specialized courses in the third and fourth year. >> [Inaudible]. >> So that it's a much better use of the state's resources in, in what we're using faculty for. But this whole issue of undergraduate education is certainly an obligation we have to the state, but I said earlier and truly believe that it's extraordinarily important to the faculty that faculty need the stimulation of teaching undergraduates to rethink their own field and to break out of patterns of, of thinking into new ideas. So I think it serves the university and, and serves the faculty of the university, as well as serving the state. >> As I think about retention rates, I think about college rankings. The US news and world report and other kinds of services have become a really big part of the conversation for higher education in the last 20 years and several of you as presidents talked about increasing the University of Minnesota's standing on those rankings, I remember people talking about top three or top five public research, [inaudible] qualifiers. What about rankings? Is it realistic for this university to try to still try to climb in those rankings? Are the rankings useful? >> [Inaudible] you know. >> Meaningful in, in an important way for this institution? >> Rankings. >> Rankings. >> Rankings. >> I think they're balderdash. >> President Keller [laughter]. >> Yeah. >> You think balderdash? >> I think, I think a lot of us would admit under close questioning that we named rankings because we wanted the direction to be right and so we were aiming a certain direction because I sat in another meeting earlier today. Talking about rankings is like talking about Beethoven's greatest hits, you know [laughter]. It, there aren't choices like that to be made and schools offer different things, they, different fields are good within different schools, different emphasis are important. I don't think rankings per se are important except to the extent that it gives you the sense that you want to be in a good group and you'd like to be up relatively high. But I think we would be it would, Peter's right, we would be on dangerous ground if we actually took it seriously. >> If I were still, if I were still president here and we, the University of Minnesota, was ranked number one, I'd get up and say, hey have you noticed we're number one [laughter]. >> No, what you would say is I don't really believe this, but we do are ranked number one. >> Lor, Lori [laughter]. >> How much of these rankings drive people's but drive the policies of the region, drive the thinking of the state? >> Presidents like rankings when they're good and they don't like them when they're not good. There are some good ratings. The National Science Foundation does a ranking of gradate fields and I think that is more substantial than any of the others. >> Yeah, that's [inaudible]. >> Some, some of the magazine ratings. >> [Inaudible]. >> They keep changing the criteria every year in order to get, you know, a Stanford and, and Yale in different positions every year because it looks so boring if they have the same position. >> It sells more magazines that way. >> You have, you have, you have, you have worldwide rankings [inaudible] University in Shanghai does a worldwide ranking of universities. They look at the citation indices of faculty members. It depends entirely on how many articles faculty publish and to the extent of which they are being used and I mean [inaudible] dimension you can rank universities, but it doesn't say anything about many, many other aspects of these institutions. >> But we rank really well in that one Nils [laughter]. >> Yeah, good. That's right. >> Well I think one of the things I, I think these are just indicators that you look at to, to see if you're sort of on the right path, you know. >> Right. >> It's not about stand, it's not about being in a particular position, but I think one of the things that universities will have to do much more of is have a serious internal conversation of how to create added value for, for the investment that students make and their families make when they come here. There's, there's some recent work by the Gallup Organization with Purdue University and, and they, they've, they have a sample of about 30,000 students and they ask these students, what was really important about their undergraduate experience and one cluster of things that really mattered was the extent to which they could be mentored and engaged by faculty members and the extent of which they were supported in their work and they had opportunities to connect what they learned on the university to experiences outside through internships, experiential learning opportunities and so forth. So I think these are the kinds of debates we have to have. One other point that I would quickly make and I, I, we've touched on it in a lot of different ways. If we really care about diversity, advancing educational opportunity in the long haul, we have to work a lot better across these institutional boundaries, especially with respect to the. >> Absolutely. >> Two year institutions. >> Yeah. >> We've done some good things here I think. We have a transfer office here, you can get scholarships in the junior year and a lot of places don't do that. So I think there are a lot of good things that we, we do, but we can do so much more because right now that's the best way for, for students to access the benefits of higher education, it's the best way to kind of catch up in fields where you may need some additional education and I think Minnesota has a framework that makes that possible. But we need to do a better job I think in, in particularly in the University of Minnesota and our larger institutions across the country in making sure these pathways, these transfer pathways are really alive and well. >> Eric, I noticed that. >> You know. >> The University of Minnesota doesn't rank very well as a party school, could you do something about that [laughter]? >> Working on it. >> Well I, boy I'm not going to say what I did want to say [laughter], we'll talk later. You know Lori, the larger issue goes back really to, to the holistic approach that we need to have to our students. You know, it's harder to get into the University of Minnesota now than it, it used to be and the reason for that is that we are blessed with a supply of students who we expect can succeed at the University of Minnesota and if you, we don't project that you're going to be successful, we don't let you in. >> [Inaudible] right. >> When you're here we try to provide you with the full range of, of support and, and activities and guidance and, and all the experiential learning things that, that Bob mentioned. But an example on transfer students for example is, is they come in and many of them want on campus housing because you know what it's their first year here and we can't do that. So it's part of a conversation around housing strategies and how we partner with private industry and take advantage of, of markets. But we think about that all the time as we try to optimize what we provide for our undergraduate students. >> Well good that you mention that because one of the things people are interested in here is what is the future of the residential aspect of higher education, lots of liberal arts colleges, private schools have gone very heavily toward a four year residential experience. The University of Minnesota used to be a much more commuter college than it is now, thanks to some of the changes that some of you oversaw. Should, should the university continue to emphasize a residential experience for undergraduates? What's the trend nationally on? >> Well the, the data show that it is, it is a better experience, students do better if they have that first year, some to the second year, but I think it's unrealistic to imagine in an urban environment like this one that, that you're going to be four years in a dormitory and we have private sector opportunities that frankly have granite countertops and skyline views that I didn't have until I was 40 years old, so they're very effective for, for students and, and we'll see that public private conversation here in a, in a significant way. But I think starting in a res hall is important. >> And is that an [inaudible]. >> Lori, I think, I think it's important. >> I would say yes. >> President Magrath. >> About residential education in part, to make a larger point, that I am not opposed to the use of technology in education. I am certainly not opposed to online courses, etcetera, etcetera when they're well done and they can be I believe passionately that face-to-face communication by people looking at each other, smiling, frowning, scratching their head, whatever, you know that that's extraordinarily important and maybe to some extent I think residential education is part of it. Now it's not an either or, but I think face-to-face communication is essential and if we lose it because it's [inaudible] whatever they call them, these smooks or mooks or whatever the hell they are [inaudible], I think we've lost the essence of real education. >> Lori, I think that. >> President Hasselmo. >> Unfortunately the, the issue of technology in universities has been too much broken down into either you do mooks to people. >> Yeah. >> Out there without any human touch and or you do residential education without any technology. I mean I think that's a dichotomy that is. >> Yeah. >> Absolutely false. There's lots of ways in which technology can enhance education and, you know, free up faculty time for meaningful face-to-face exploration. >> Mark. >> And I think we have to exploit that, those opportunities to the full. >> Yes President Keller. >> I think Mark made the, the point before that this is mostly up to faculty and faculty ought to think about ways in which they can use technology effectively rather than have being a top-down idea we'll use more mooks and that would save us money. One point I would like to make on the residence halls is we don't often think of it, but actually one of the practical costs we've encountered is the huge increase in what kinds of things you have to provide within a residence hall. You know, when we went to school you were allowed to bring a radio in, but not a hotplate and if you compare that with what we have to provide now within dormitories, it's an enormous expense which is not obvious to the public, but it is one of the things raising costs. >> You didn't have a climbing wall? >> I didn't have a climbing wall [laughter]. >> Well he actually climbed the wall every night [laughter]. >> Well friends we're down to our last few minutes and we've got one topic that we haven't touched on yet that I know will back the hecklers in the back of your neck some of you rise a bit and that's athletics. >> Oh yeah, I thought you'd never ask. >> I saved the best for last. >> I got three thirty Lori. [ Laughter ] >> Yes, I'll just read this good question here. What is the goal of college presidents in bringing athletics back so it is not just a, a stepping stone to professional athletics roles and is really something that engages the folks and it, that the football coach does not make more money than pretty much everybody else on the stage? What about athlete how, how? >> I can speak to all those issues when. >> Sure. >> I made Sports Illustrated twice, once when I was hired and Coach Mason was paid three times my salary that made a column in Sports Illustrated. And the other time when we were losing $600,000.00 a year on our golf teams. I decided, you know, they never played a tournament here because it was too cold when the students were here to attend and anyhow, the alums didn't like it and they in a lovely gesture bought the team out and they won the national championship. So I made [laughter] the Sports Illustrated the, the goofball president the one who abolished this team is the best golf team in America [laughter]. And then I, it was the Pioneer Press, I actually got a ruler and I measured when we had the basketball scandal, cheating scandal, the headline was bigger than the headline for the bombing of Hiroshima [laughter] or maybe it was Nagasaki or both, I'm not sure. I, I'm not sure. Every time I was on the big ten council and proposed something they told me it was an anti-trust violation. Any effort to try to take control of what I thought were out of control competitions, arms race it's sometimes called, I mean so at one point I thought maybe congress should have an exemption to try to get some control over that. So that's one observation. You know, and second it is important to a university I mean so I don't want to deny the role of athletics. But a president's role should be to try to keep it as, as clean as possible and to make sure that you have effective systems for compliance and, and, and all the rest of that. On the salary thing I, I, I don't know what to say. Look, you know, that famous quotation when Babe Ruth said, was asked, you know, you're paid more than President Harding and this is a very true statement. >> [Inaudible]. >> And he said I had a better year [laughter]. Harding didn't have a good year in the White House he was throwing water balloons I mean. >> That's right. >> How you compare Harding to the Babe and. >> That's right. >> And so, I don't know, I mean it's a rare talent to be, you know, a brilliant football coach and I don't know if it's rarer than being a university president, but they are markets and if you want to participate in that market you need to have good coaches and they cost what they cost. I, I, I really don't know what to say, but in my world I would pay elementary school teachers more than I would pay baseball. >> Yeah. >> Players, but it's not my word [applause], you know. I would, you know. >> We, we are dealing here with a societal issue, I'm going to take, take up just a minute for a little story way back when, when I was president here. Early on I met with the editors and writers for the Star Trib and I was asked, you know, why do you, speaking to me, so emphasize athletics at the U? And I said, well that's a very interesting question, let me point out something. I don't remember the details, but you've got at least two reporters covering the men's football program, at least one possibly two on the basketball program, ice hockey is big here. So you have reporters covering ice hockey and now, tell me how many reporters do you have covering the University of Minnesota? Well the answer was zero, there was one, one reporter who covered yeah education in general. >> And it was Lori. >> That was it, that's the answer. I mean this is a social issue in the United, we love athletics of all kind for good or bad and often sadly, it's for bad and I'd be happy to have been at a university where I was paid more than the football coach and so on. But that hasn't happened yet, but I'm still hoping yeah. >> Yeah [laughter]. How about at those big universities that you were involved with in the association that you headed in Washington President Hasselmo, is there universal hand ringing about this issue? >> Well, you know, the, the Association of American Universities dealt primarily with research issues frankly and with graduate education issues, but certainly lurking there behind the scenes was the athletic issue and not AAU has institutions that rank all the way from, you know, top division one to division three. So you had very different cultures within, within the AAU and there was no, there was no league of universities. AAU universities that played, played as, as AAU universities, it was part of the culture of different universities. It played itself off in different ways in the Ivy League than it did in the big ten and so forth. So it, it was not a major issue for those, those discussions that we had. >> [Inaudible] yes. >> I just wanted to add. >> President Bruininx. >> Yeah, I wanted to add something. I, I'm a sports fan, had two sons, we had two sons who played at the division one level, I worked pretty hard to bring a football stadium back to campus, that wasn't easy. So I'm, I really do believe that athletics has a really important role to play and I think if, if we wanted to go in the other direction, like in senate I was asked whether we ought to go the direction of the University of Chicago and eliminate our football team and I said, I don't have that under consideration at the present time. And, you know, I, but I will say this, that I don't think an arms race in higher education focused on athletics is going to serve us really well. I think we have to compete and it's going to be in some ways harder for us than some other places. But our, our role we, we're talking about student athletes and our responsibility is to graduate them and in many of our sports we're not, our graduation rates fortunately here have gone up and they're, they're leading in many cases to big ten, there's a lot to be proud of. But I, I really think we made a fundamental mistake that the big ten it recognizes now, when we eliminated freshman ineligibility. >> Yeah. >> For intercollegiate. >> Yeah. >> Athletics and, and. >> Yeah. >> The big ten at least, the big ten presidents for several years and most recently I guess this year, this spring, have argued to, for the reinstate freshman ineligibility and there'll be a big debate about it, but I think it's the right thing to do. Less than two percent of the kids that, that really play high level division one basketball or football end up in the pros and make any kind of living at it and so if that's the case, if those are the dismal statistics, graduating students should be job one in our major universities and, and that's why I really salute, you know, your colleagues who have kept this debate alive and well in higher education, it's some, we need, we don't need to end athletics, but we do need to amend them the way in which we operate. >> And I, I just add really to everybody's comments, it is an important part of our brand. It is, you know a discussion shifter when you've got to talk about ethanol economics, it is, it is part of, of a lot of people in Minnesota's pride. I think when we played football on January 1st this year half of the TVs in the Twin Cities that were on. >> Yeah. >> Were turned to that game. It's, it's something people care passionately about and that passion redirects itself to other elements of the university as well. But we have to do it with integrity, we have to do it with the best outcome for our student athletes who are students first and then athletes in mind and I think overall, we do a pretty good job of it at the University of Minnesota. >> Lori, I have a. >> With [inaudible]. >> I, I have a confession to make. >> Yes. >> In spite of the fact that I've lived out of state for 18 years I still check on the Gopher scores [laughter]. >> That's right. >> Good for you. >> That's right. >> Good for you. >> We do, we all do. >> Just a few sec, we just have about a minute left here. Does anybody on this panel have some parting words of advice for President Kaler as he has to battle the legislature the next two weeks with the higher education conference committee? Each of you have played that role, what should, what, what should he have, hear from you as he goes into battle? >> Lori, I want to repeat some advice that I used to get. The first, the most popular advice was to spend money that doesn't exist [laughter] to try that. The second was, was to do, do something that was illegal [laughter]. And the third thing was to do things we had already been doing for 25 years. >> Okay, okay. >> I think Eric knows this, but my view of the presidency is being right is only 10 percent of the problem. It's, it's important, it's a critical component, but 90 percent is putting together the coalition that is the faculty persuasive, the student body, the legislature whatever and it's very easy to sit in your office and think of all the right decisions, but making it operational is the toughest part of being a president. >> Yeah. >> You know, I would. >> President Magrath. >> I would say imagine the State of Minnesota without the university of Minnesota, you ain't got a State of Minnesota if you don't have the University of Minnesota, which means we need some bucks to do the job that serves you, the whole state. >> President Keller, anything to add [applause]. >> Eric, I don't 'have any advice for you [laughter]. >> I think we need to galvanize these people in the audience, we need you to. >> I think we're going to do, we're going to do that by inviting them to a reception. >> Yeah. >> Outside this hall. President Kaler, you get the last words. >> Thank you Lori, for helping us navigate through this. Thank you to my colleagues who are back and thank you for being with us this afternoon. >> Thank you everybody. [ Applause ]


1922 Gubernatorial Election, Minnesota
Party Candidate Votes % ±
Republican J. A. O. Preus 309,756 45.21% -7.85%
Farmer–Labor Magnus Johnson 295,479 43.13% n/a
Democratic Edward Indrehus 79,903 11.66% +1.29%
Majority 14,277 2.08%
Turnout 685,138
Republican hold Swing

See also

External links

This page was last edited on 9 October 2019, at 16:21
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.