Possibility of shutting down MSU - Northern

[CelticCat]

http://missoulian.com/news/local/articl ... 002e0.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SonomaCat]

It would seem like closing down a school like that would be almost politically impossible ... it would pretty much wipe out Havre.

That said ... if they were starting from scratch and making decisions based on getting the most bang for the buck, I don't think Northern or Tech or Western would exist. But once you get an institution established, it sure seems like it would be hard to get rid of it.

[KittieKop]

So are you saying that none of those schools serve a legitimate purpose within the university system. I understand your point about closing it- politically wouldn't happen. But are you saying the only reason to keep them open is based on political or local economic reasons?

[GrizinWashington]

So are you saying that none of those schools serve a legitimate purpose within the university system. I understand your point about closing it- politically wouldn't happen. But are you saying the only reason to keep them open is based on political or local economic reasons?

Yes he is. That is the ONLY reason those schools exist as 4 year colleges.

[SonomaCat]

So are you saying that none of those schools serve a legitimate purpose within the university system. I understand your point about closing it- politically wouldn't happen. But are you saying the only reason to keep them open is based on political or local economic reasons?

I'm saying that having 6 four year public colleges/universities in Montana is an incredibly inefficient use of taxpayer money, and wouldn't likely happen were it not for entrenched interests.

If a state had money to burn, maintaining a ratio of one four year public college for every 150,000 residents would be great ... very convenient for everyone (and great for people who like small enrollments at their school of choice). But it's simply not an efficient use of taxpayer dollars.

The schools were established back in the days when the state government was corrupt as hell (bribes did most of the talking) and traveling was much, much more difficult ... which led to the establishment of so many schools (led both by geography and locals buying state-funded cash cows for their communities). Today, it's not a big deal for a person to grow up in one part of the state and drive to school in another part of the state. The roads and vehicles are good enough that people do that and drive home a lot on weekends without giving it a second thought.

If the state were to make decisions from scratch and base them only on utilizing taxpayer funds as efficiently as possible while giving students the best educations possible, they'd probably just keep MSU, UM and Eastern, and then take any programs not already covered by those campuses (Diesel mechanics, petroleum engineering, etc.) and move them to the appropriate campus among the three. They'd then offer distance learning classes for Freshman and Sophomore level classes in many programs to towns around the state (essentially an online/satellite JC for those students who aren't ready to leave home for whatever reason).

[WetWaderMT]

Make them all 2 year JuCos, and stop the duplication of degrees @ UM and MSU...talk about a waste of tax payer $$$$! It seems like there's this attitude of "well, UM is going to offer that degree so MSU has to" and vice versa, what a waste!

[Cledus]

Make them all 2 year JuCos, and stop the duplication of degrees @ UM and MSU...talk about a waste of tax payer $$$$! It seems like there's this attitude of "well, UM is going to offer that degree so MSU has to" and vice versa, what a waste!

To a certain extent, I think there has to some duplication for popular and / or in-demand degrees, like business degrees. But for the more specialized stuff, I think most of us would agree the programs would be best left to one university rather than all.

[Hammer]

Tech is the best school in the state. Period. Their placement rate in science and engineering programs is In the high 90s. They offer degrees in engineering that Bozeman doesn't have. Just because a school has a higher enrollment than another doesn't make it a superior school.

[KittieKop]

So are you saying that none of those schools serve a legitimate purpose within the university system. I understand your point about closing it- politically wouldn't happen. But are you saying the only reason to keep them open is based on political or local economic reasons?

I'm saying that having 6 four year public colleges/universities in Montana is an incredibly inefficient use of taxpayer money, and wouldn't likely happen were it not for entrenched interests.

If a state had money to burn, maintaining a ratio of one four year public college for every 150,000 residents would be great ... very convenient for everyone (and great for people who like small enrollments at their school of choice). But it's simply not an efficient use of taxpayer dollars.

The schools were established back in the days when the state government was corrupt as hell (bribes did most of the talking) and traveling was much, much more difficult ... which led to the establishment of so many schools (led both by geography and locals buying state-funded cash cows for their communities). Today, it's not a big deal for a person to grow up in one part of the state and drive to school in another part of the state. The roads and vehicles are good enough that people do that and drive home a lot on weekends without giving it a second thought.

If the state were to make decisions from scratch and base them only on utilizing taxpayer funds as efficiently as possible while giving students the best educations possible, they'd probably just keep MSU, UM and Eastern, and then take any programs not already covered by those campuses (Diesel mechanics, petroleum engineering, etc.) and move them to the appropriate campus among the three. They'd then offer distance learning classes for Freshman and Sophomore level classes in many programs to towns around the state (essentially an online/satellite JC for those students who aren't ready to leave home for whatever reason).

If its not that big a deal to drive from one side of the state to another, what sense does it make to have the three 4-year institutions all located along the southern I-90 corridor? Would it not make as much sense to say, shutter MSU, leaving MSU-Northern in place. That would leave you a nice geographical spread around the state - eastern, western and northern. This of course is tongue-in-cheek; of course there are political factors to take into account as to why campuses are where they are, but I also think there was very good thought put into the reorganization about 15 years ago too, where all those satellite campuses were put under "control" of the two major campuses in Bozeman and Missoula. I believe they did a good job then in consolidating programs, aligning the smaller 4-year campuses' programs with those at the larger institutions and streamlining the administrative processes. There is more than likely be much more room for cutting fat in how all those campuses operate, but the option to shutter one - and the logic that people can just drive to another campus - doesn't take into account all the working-students, non-traditional aged students and those attending classes because of the access to them. I for one can say the major reason I am not back in classes is because I don't have a 4 year institution accessible to me (that I can afford), offering the courses I'm looking for. If I were in Bozeman, Missoula or even Havre, I'd likely be enrolled part-time, working full time towards my masters.

[SonomaCat]

That's where online courses (and interactive video classes) can be a real positive addition to a University system. I personally don't like taking them, but it's a way cheaper way to give access to people anywhere in the world.

As for shuttering MSU and keeping Northern ... yes, that would be an option as well. But it doesn't make any sense cost-wise. MSU already has the campus in place to handle, say, 15K students. Northern would have to build about 90% of the infrastructure to reach that capacity. So if we were looking strictly at being as efficient as possible while providing the highest quality education possible, it would seem to make the most sense to keep the largest campuses and change the role/eliminate the smaller campuses to maximize the economy of scale.

All that said ... it will never happen. Nobody will let their town lose a cash cow like a taxpayer-funded college campus. And I certainly don't blame them.