text:
In the European Union, enlargement, special arrangements for the expansion of the Schengen Area, and the gradual development of a stronger EU role in immigration have added new complexity to the policy landscape, leading to both new patterns of movement and new policies for governing immigration from outside of the European Union's 28 Member States. The research offered here focuses on migration policies, trends, and common challenges that affect Europe at a supranational level—from free movement to asylum policy and the management of EU borders.
Recent surges in the arrival of unauthorized migrants with possible humanitarian claims have prompted the United States and the European Union to consider in-country and offshore processing for some refugee and asylum applications. As this article explores, some of the questions raised about the feasibility of such programs include their consistency with humanitarian law and their effectiveness in reducing unwanted entries.
In its newest five-year "roadmap" for justice and home affairs policy, the European Union has made migration a priority area. But while the Stockholm program offers plenty of detail on issues like illegal migration and asylum, it offers few specifics as to the final goal. MPI's Elizabeth Collett analyzes the program's action points and looks at challenges facing its implementation.
Over the past year, long-standing discussions and negotiations have resulted in several new information-sharing initiatives that seek to boost security while facilitating travel for legitimate travelers.
Intermarriage is considered a test of integration: the higher the rate, the more integrated the group. Olga Nottmeyer of DIW Berlin finds that while immigrants from Turkey, by far Germany's largest immigrant group, have had low rates of intermarriage in the first generation, intermarriage rates among second-generation Turkish men are increasing.
In recent years, the European Union has come to recognize that it cannot prevent migration and that it needs a different approach to managing flows from its poorer neighbors. Jean-Pierre Cassarino of the European University Institute looks at the rationale for mobility partnerships and what they will need to be effective.
Ireland's economy and openness to labor migration from new EU Member States fueled immigration flows, including return migration, over the past few years. But the global recession has hit the country hard, and unemployment among both foreigners and Irish nationals is rising. Emma Quinn of the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin updates the Ireland country profile with a look at recent trends, policies, and data.
This policy brief examines the legalization debate on both sides of the Atlantic and discusses policy parameters that characterize legalization programs, such as qualifications, requirements, benefits, and program design and implementation.
The enlargement of the European Union has fundamentally changed migration patterns to the United Kingdom. Since May 2004 an estimated 1.5 million workers have moved to the UK from new EU member states. This report looks at the challenges ahead as migration patterns shift across the UK.
Despite benefits of sharing commercial, government, or personal information for law enforcement and intelligence purposes, U.S. and EU officials have toiled to find a satisfactory legal framework to do so. This report describes and analyzes possible legal, privacy, and data-protection frameworks for information-sharing agreements relating to human mobility.
"Good integration" happens every day in different areas around the country, either as a unified response to a tragic event, in the private sphere, or in the successful performance of some ethnic minorities in education and employment.Yet, in some respects, communities are moving apart, pulled or sometimes pushed, by their own choices.
This short briefing paper explores the potential effects of the economic crisis with respect to immigration across European Union Member States, and outlines how policymakers might respond to changing patterns of migrant inflows and outflows, and the consequences of the downturn on immigrants and their host communities.
This report examines granting local voting rights in municipal elections to resident non-nationals.
This Fact Sheet outlines the common rules and policies of Schengen Member States that have abolished controls at internal borders, the regulations for EU and third-country nationals who wish to enter and reside in the Schengen Area, and the function and mechanism of the "Schengen visa."
This brief examines the role of intercultural dialogue as a tool for strengthening relations between European governments and the Muslim community, reinforcing religious freedoms, and tackling issues of racism and extremism.


text:
Name: Jeff Culverhouse
Education: Bachelors of Business Administration, Accounting at West Georgia College
Family: Wife Jessica, kids Morgan and Ashley and dog Roxie
What encouraged you to begin Systems Conversion?
A. Fear, plain and simple. In 1992 when I started Systems Conversion (SCL), I was unemployed and having trouble finding a job. The economy was in the toilet much like today. I think fear can be a great motivator if you are able to manage the fear. It's a great help in forcing you to step outside your comfort zone. Like most folks in my generation, I was taught to go to college and study hard so I could get a job working for someone else. Being an entrepreneur was not in my makeup at the time.
I had a background in manufacturing with experience in all areas of accounting. My jobs for the various companies I worked for after college included putting in enterprise software. This is the overall software that runs a manufacturing company. I had worked for an enterprise software vendor after the manufacturing companies.
And then, I was unemployed. Fear made me work my network and find a consulting gig on the software I knew best. The rest is history. People are always asking me what we do. We implement software for manufacturing companies. Plain and simple.
What are some of the responsibilities, risks and the bright sides of being an entrepreneur in the constantly changing field of technology?
A. The risks are many. Clients are more demanding in light of the economy. I work mainly with medium to large-sized manufacturers, those with $150 million to over a billion dollars in annual sales. The larger companies are typically easier to work with, but everyone is running lean these days.
The technology I work with is older technology but works well. It's a very mature industry now and there are fewer manufacturers using the software due to acquisitions and mergers.
We are sort of the last man standing in our niche. There are still a few hundred companies using this product in the US.
After the "dot com" boom, many of the smaller and self-run technology companies have struggled. How has Systems Conversion kept its customer base and attracted new customers?
A. SCL is a company of best practices and documented methodologies. We always document what we do that works well so we replicate our success. That's why manufacturers come to us — confidence in success. We've never had a failed project in over 20 years of business. Our clients include Robert Bosch, Godiva Chocolates, Akzo Nobel, Alcan Cable, Woods manufacturing (Ranger Boats), Toyota Boshoku, Husqvarna and many more. We've worked with around 250 manufacturing firms over the years. Our reputation for excellence and honesty keeps us going.
Being part of the first wave of technological entrepreneurs in the Internet age, how do you see the Internet playing a role in business in the future?
A. We were actually pioneers in remote education using the Internet as well as having a remote workforce. Our client base is worldwide and we do a lot of work, especially programming over the Internet.
In the early days of SCL there was no World Wide Web and we were on the bleeding edge. My old partner Jamie Harris made a comment the other day, "Today's generation knows no other world than one with the Internet. To them it's always been there and everything is wireless. Being tethered to a PC for Internet connectivity is foreign to them."
I think a lot depends on whether the government keeps their hands out of the Internet or not.
Where is your favorite place to be in Bartow County?
A. Anywhere my friends and family are. I am blessed to have so many friends in this world that care about me.
What is your greatest achievement?
A. I have two: number one is my wife and kids. Having such a great family is easily my greatest achievement.
The last is my company being named by INC magazine to the INC500, which is a list of the 500 fastest growing privately held companies in the U.S. I remember walking through the airport and seeing that particular INC magazine and knowing my company was featured in it. That was cool.
What is something people would be surprised to know about you?
A. I'm a two time 4-H Master — state winner — and a national winner as well. 4-H was a huge influence in my life and I'm actively involved in the Bartow County 4-H Club. It's one of the best 4-H programs in the state.
Do you have a personal philosophy?
A. I have several:
"If it's not in writing it doesn't exist."
"Honesty is the best policy."
"Always admit your mistakes before someone else points them out."
"You can learn something from everyone, bad and good."

subset: commoncrawl


text:
AArizona Board of Regents
2004 - 2005
Gary L. Stuart
Board President
Chris Herstam
Lead for Redesign Initiative
Fred T. Boice
Robert B. Bulla
Ernest Calderón
Lorraine W. Frank
Benjamin Graff
Jack B. Jewett
Wesley J. McCalley
Christina A. Palacios
Governor Janet Napolitano
Tom Horne
Superintendent of Public InstructionA Redesigned Public University System 1
Table of Contents
2 "Go to College." The Silver Bullet for Prosperity
6 University Redesign: Our Challenge, Our Charge
12 Redesigning Arizona's Public University System
20 Redesign Parameters and Features
22 Real Mission Differentiation
30 A Process to Expand on Demand
A Redesigned Public University System2 A Redesigned Public University System
A Redesigned Public University System 3
Arizona's Response
With stakes this high, it is more important than ever for Arizona
to have an excellent university system. Some of the pieces of that system were put in place three years ago when the Arizona Board of Regents adopted Changing Directions. This initiative created
a well-constructed set of priorities for each of the state's three universities – Arizona State University, The University of Arizona, and Northern Arizona University.
But Arizona cannot afford to stand still. Population growth rates and student enrollments are expected to skyrocket during the next two decades, and the university system must be able to accommodate the crush of students – many of them poorer and older – who will be knocking on the universities' doors.
Right now, an in-state student who wishes to enroll in a four-year, degree-granting institution selects from a list of higher education options that includes three big public universities, and a relatively modest collection of smaller private colleges. That's like being in a coffee shop and having a choice only between a large coffee and a medium coffee – rather than having access to a full menu that provides everything from a tiny espresso to a large no-foam extra-hot latte.
These issues, and more like them, led to this report, A Redesigned Public University System, which is the product of an eleven-month study and provides a way for Arizona's University System to evolve, to change, to grow, and to deliver what is necessary for the education of our citizens throughout the state.
In June 2004, the Arizona Board of Regents introduced Arizonans to the idea of university redesign, when they offered one possible redesign of the public university system. They invited Arizonans to comment on it and also to offer other ideas, and they established a work group to explore the feasibility of redesigning the university system.
This report summarizes the history of university redesign, dating back to Changing Directions, and it lays out the redesign alternative recommended by the work group and adopted by the Arizona Board of Regents in April 2005.
In other words, the fortunes of Arizona —
and everywhere else — are tied to education. And this tie will only intensify in the future. Given the trends, it's a
good bet that education will not only be the economic issue, but also the social, the political, and the cultural issue of
our time.
This isn't just an old bit of wisdom.
It's also a silver bullet for prosperity.
It works for individuals. On average, an American with a college degree earns roughly twice as much money per year as an American with a high school diploma.
It works for companies. In what is fast becoming an era of ubiquitous invention, success increasingly goes to those companies with smart, competitive people who can churn out new ideas, new discoveries, and new knowledge.
It works for cities. Cities with an educated population get
good jobs, lots of tax revenue, and more civic engagement –
and they are nimbler at reinventing themselves when the economy changes.
It works for states. The percentage of college graduates and post-graduates is the single factor with the greatest power to explain differences in per capita income between states.
It works for nations, too. The rise of China and India on the global stage has more to do with an educated workforce than a rich endowment of natural resources.
"Go to College."4 A Redesigned Public University System A Redesigned Public University System 5
• The Talent Gap. With an aging workforce and modest population growth, it is likely that the U.S. labor market will be experiencing a shortage, not a surplus. This shortage is likely to hit harder at the cutting edges of scientific and technological creativity, and it is likely to reach epic proportions by 2010.
• Wasted Hispanic/Latino Talent. As baby boomers retire, emerging population groups —
especially Latinos — will become the primary source of new workers. Yet Latinos
complete college at much lower rates than Whites. The lingering "income gap" exacerbates this problem and limits upward mobility even further. Three-quarters of the students at
the nation's top colleges — including public universities — come from the richest 25 percent of the population. Only 3 percent of those students come from the poorest 25 percent of
the population.
• Obsolete Schools. As Microsoft founder Bill Gates likes to say, you wouldn't teach kids about today's computers on a 50-year-old mainframe. Yet we continue to teach children in an educational system that was designed a half-century ago. This question of obsolete schools will only make the talent gap worse.
• The "Big Sort". As all these gaps grow, the rich are getting richer in geographical terms.
A small pack of U.S. cities is racing away from everybody else in attracting and retaining an educated workforce. This "big sort" poses a serious threat to the nation's economy and its social stability.
• The "Right-Brain" Opportunity. As American companies move overseas more "left-brain" work — white-collar jobs that can be reduced to a set of rules, routines, and instructions, such as basic computer coding, accounting, legal research, and financial analysis, the best bet for the U.S. is retaining "right-brain work"— work that relies on people skills and uses analytical reasoning, imagination, and creativity, such as programmers who can design entire systems and bankers who focus on "the art of the deal" rather than the intricacies of Excel.
Note: Ear
nings for year-round full-time workers 25 years and over, 2002. Unemployment rate for those 25 and over, 2003, U.S.Source: Bureau of the Census; Bureau of Labor Statistics, Postsecondary Education Opportunity, 2002.Median EarningsUnemployment RateMORE EDUCATION LEADS TO HIGHER INCOME...AND TO LOWER UNEMPLOYMENT RATESProfessional Degree Doctorate Master's Degree Bachelor's Degree Associate Degree Some College, No Degree High School Graduate Less Than High School$85,9188.8.131.52.03.35.28.45.5$77,216$56,494$48,896$36,784$35,505$29,800$22,584908070605040302010001%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%9%
More Education Leads to Higher Income — and to Lower
Unemployment Rates6 A Redesigned Public University System A Redesigned Public University System 7
But, it will require:
• creating choices
• creating a culture of excellence
• increasing resources and using them wisely
• supporting diversity
• building capacity in our public university system
Can Arizona Do It?
That's essentially the question the Arizona Board of Regents asked back in June 2004, when they introduced Arizona to the concept of "university redesign" and voted to authorize a comprehensive study of the possibilities.
That process began immediately, and over the next eleven months involved three parts.
TOMORROW, Arizona could lead other states in college-educated residents.
RIZONA AND NEVADA IN A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWNPercent change in number of public and nonpublic high school graduates by state, 2001-02 (actual) and 2017-18 (projected)Loss of -10% to -35%Loss of -1% to -9%Gain of 1% to 10%Gain of 11% to 25%Gain of 26% to 50%Gain of 51% to 103%Percent Change in Number of Public and Nonpublic High School GraduatesSource: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 2003.
TODAY, Arizona lags behind other states in college-educated residents.
95028401034424946453722352030311519253623134333717144384732512644182741292811391231656212448ARIZONA RANKS 38th IN COLLEGE DEGREESLess than 25% of Arizona's 25-34 year-olds have a college degreeNumbers on States Represent Overall RankPercent of 2000 Population 25-34 years-old with Bachelors Degree or HigherSource: US Census17.3 – 20.120.2 – 23.723.8 – 30.230.3 – 35.335.4 – 50.68 A Redesigned Public University System A Redesigned Public University System 9
Part Two: Alternative Proposals
The Board of Regents invited Arizonans to comment on the proposal and to submit different ideas for shaping the university system. Any overhaul, the Regents added, should address how the university system, as a whole, can in a cost-effective manner:
• Respond to the surge of new students projected to seek admissions in higher education;
• Increase the number of students who earn college degrees and complete job training programs
each year;
• Provide for greater diversity among students, faculty, and staff;
• Increase access and success for Arizona's middle- and lower-income families; and,
• Build globally competitive research institutions.
Arizonans responded with fifteen alternative proposals, as well as with dozens of emails, letters, and newspaper opinion pieces.
UA South — Sierra Vista
As a starting point, Arizona Board of Regents President Chris Herstam and the three university presidents offered the "regional university" proposal as a new model that would enable the university system to meet the state's full range of needs. This proposal emphasized creating some new freestanding "regional universities" that would focus on undergraduate education.
• These two new universities — perhaps to be known as Southern Arizona University and Central Arizona University — would be created by realigning existing resources and using infrastructure already in place. Southern Arizona University would be created by merging the NAU-Yuma campus and UA South, and would focus primarily on Cochise, Pima, Yuma, La Paz, Pinal, and Santa Cruz counties. Central Arizona University would be created by detaching ASU at the West campus from Arizona State University and would focus mostly on Maricopa County.
• Northern Arizona University would remain a regional university for the northern part of the state, focusing on Coconino, Mohave, Yavapai, Navajo, Apache, Gila, Graham, and Greenlee counties. But NAU would also retain Ph.D. programs in areas of unique expertise and excellence; it would remain Arizona's premier undergraduate residential university; and it would maintain its leadership role in
nontraditional education both
on-line and on-site throughout Arizona.
• This regional university system would significantly lessen enrollment pressure on both the University of Arizona and Arizona State University, thus enabling both universities to enhance the quality of their undergraduate education programs and expand their research efforts, which are vital to Arizona's economic development.
• All five universities would be committed to ensuring diversity in their student bodies, with well-prepared students and students from all socio-economic levels served equally well in the two research universities and three regional universities.
• Arizona's universities and community colleges would continue to collaborate and work closely together. Specifically, higher education centers would exist throughout rural Arizona via cooperative agreements with the community colleges, and additional centers would be created as the regional universities forge new alliances with community colleges.
Part One: Initial Proposal
NAU Campus — Walkup Skydome10 A Redesigned Public University System A Redesigned Public University System 11
Evaluation Criteria
The Feasibility and Planning Study Work Group's criteria for evaluating any possible university redesign:
Does the proposal:
• Enhance affordable access and opportunity for all Arizona's citizens?
• Provide an economically feasible plan?
• Foster university and other collaborations, resource sharing, economies of scale, and other efficiencies?
• Facilitate collaborations between and among Arizona's university and community college systems and institutions?
• Ensure the university system complements the different economic and workforce development needs and opportunities for Arizona's various geographical areas and economic regions?
• Enable the universities to recruit and retain the faculty and staff necessary to achieve their missions?
TUDY STATESOregonColoradoMinnesotaWisconsinArizonaMissouriWashingtonNorth CarolinaMichiganPennsylvaniaCalifornia3.564.555.065.475.585.706.138.4110.0812.3735.48Population(millions)84%75%88%87%64%84%79%70%79%84%47%White,Not HispanicHispanic 8%Hispanic 17%Black 4%Black 6%Hispanic 25%Black 11%Hispanic 8%Black 22%Black 14%Black 10%Hispanic 32%LargestMinorityState* Source: US Census Bureau, 2000.
In April 2005, the Feasibility and Planning Study Work Group completed its assignment and submitted a redesign recommendation to the Arizona Board of Regents. The Board adopted the redesign recommendation, which is presented in the next section, and asked the state's three public universities to prepare implementation strategies.
Reports generated during the feasibility and planning study are available online at www.abor.asu.edu. The website presents the products of the Work Group's four subcommittees and also contains copies of the Board of Regents' original redesign proposal, plus the fifteen alternatives. The website also presents the reports of the stakeholder groups.
Study States
The Feasibility and Planning Study Work Group collected information on university systems in ten other states (four Western, one Southern, four Midwestern, and one Eastern state).
To analyze the merits of "university redesign" generally and of each proposal specifically, the Regents appointed a 20-member Feasibility and Planning Study Work Group and assigned it the task of creating processes of inquiry and public involvement that could be completed in one year and produce a recommendation.
The Work Group, consisting of representatives from the three universities, community colleges, Arizona Board of Regents, a Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education consultant, and a project director, designed and followed an action plan with two phases:
• Phase one focused on gathering data and exploring information relevant to the concept of redesign. It involved three study teams: one to complete a needs assessment; another to collect information on university systems in ten other states; and a third to develop a set of guiding questions and measures against which possible redesigns were to be evaluated.
• In phase one, members of the Work Group also met with stakeholder groups, which had been formed to participate in the feasibility and planning study. These groups represented the following constituencies: Alumni/Community, Business/Economic Development, Community Colleges, Diversity Groups, Faculty, Staff, and Students.
(See diagram below.)
• In phase two, the Work Group's task was to develop one or more redesign options, using the data and input gathered in the first phase. In February 2005, the Work Group unanimously approved a draft proposal and moved it forward for public comment.
• Eight public forums were held in locations around the state, and stakeholder groups organized meetings to review and comment on the new redesign proposal.
• Throughout the process, Arizona Board of Regents staff and Work Group members met with Arizona legislators, local elected officials, and the Governor's policy advisors.
Part Three: Feasibility and
Planning Study Work Group
sity Stakeholder GroupFaculty Stakeholder GroupCommunity Colleges Stakeholder GroupStaff Stakeholder GroupAlumni/Community Stakeholder GroupBusiness/Economic Development Stateholder GroupStudent Stakeholder GroupABOR Feasibility and Planning Study Work GroupARIZONA UNIVERSITY SYSTEM REDESIGN Stakeholder Groups12 A Redesigned Public University System A Redesigned Public University System 13
Over 8.5 million people by 2020...
...means over
180,000 students knocking on Arizona universities' doors.
Yet, Arizona's economy will demand even more degrees.
* Projection
Source: Arizona Board of Regents, January 2005. 10.08.06.04.02.00.0Population in Millions 5,130,6325,629,8705,832,1506,019,7506,926,2507,778,1758,587,550ARIZONA'S GROWTH IN POPULATION 2020*2000200320042005*2010*2015*LAST 10 YEARS: Arizona's public universities graduated:• 170,157 Bachelor• 59,374 Master• 8,269 Ph.D.• 5,247 Professional degree students MORE DEGREES NEEDEDNEXT 10 YEARS: Arizona's economy will need:• 330,000 Bachelor• 74,000 Master• 16,000 Ph.D.• 23,000 Professional degree students* Source: Arizona Board of Regents, 2005. * Projection assumes rising college-going rates until 2010, then flat until 2020.Source: Arizona Board of Regents, January 2005. 180,000160,000140,000120,000100,00080,00060,00040,00020,0000Growth Rates 105,842116,581113,600136,759156,265181,188 2000 2004 2005* 2010* 2015* 2020*ARIZONA UNIVERSITY ENROLLMENTS CONTINUE TO GROW
This presentation of the redesign plan begins by summarizing the four major challenges facing the Arizona University System, and then presents the strategic "parameters and features" adopted by the Arizona Board of Regents to help Arizona address these challenges.
Challenge 1: Enhancing access
Arizona's university enrollment is projected to increase by approximately 60 percent — from 115,000 to 181,000 students – in the next fifteen years. This increase in demand exceeds the projection in every other state except for Nevada. Furthermore, this rapid demand is occurring in both traditional and nontraditional students. The current system for delivering higher education – through three public universities, community colleges, and a modestly sized private college sector – is ill suited to respond effectively to this exceptional growth.14 A Redesigned Public University System A Redesigned Public University System 15
Hispanics/Latinos alone will account for 41 percent of all Arizona public high school graduates in 2014.
The state graduation rate is calculated from four year
s of data from the NCAA graduation database, 1997, 1996, 1995, 1994 cohorts combined. Numbers are rounded.SIX-YEAR GRADUATION RATES FOR ARIZONA PLUS TEN STUDY STATESArizonaCaliforniaColoradoMichiganMinnesotaMissouriNorth CarolinaOregonPennsylvaniaWashingtonWisconsin26%49%30%62%25%34%41%43%38%47%19%American Indian/Alaskan Native56%67%48%74%41%52%62%53%53%65%52%Asian/Pacific Islander39%37%31%62%30%33%49%46%40%48%26%African American43%48%36%53%35%41%52%40%49%55%39%Hispanic/Latinos54%65%51%74%45%49%60%43%60%63%56%WhiteStudy States
Graduation rates for Hispanic/Latino, African-American, and American
Indian students lag behind Asian or majority students' rates — in Arizona or any
of the study states.
Number of Graduates
White, non-Hispanic Hispanic/Latino Black, non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/Alaska NativeARIZONA PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES BY RACE/ETHNICITY 1992-93 through 2001-03 (actual), 2002-03 through 2017-18 (projected)1993 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 2000 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '1880,00070,00060,00050,00040,00030,00020,00010,0000
While Arizona has done a better job than many states in enhancing educational opportunity for students from different ethnic backgrounds, serious gaps continue to persist between the successes of students of different backgrounds. The university system must address these differences, because in the future most Arizona high school graduates will come from currently underrepresented groups, especially Hispanics/Latinos. According to the Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education, non-White groups currently account for 40 percent of all public high school graduates in Arizona and that figure will rise to 54 percent in the
next nine years – when today's third-graders will graduate from high school.
Challenge 2: Enhancing diversity16 A Redesigned Public University System A Redesigned Public University System 17
Unlike many other states, Arizona currently relies heavily on research universities to deliver undergraduate education within the university system.
This matters because...
...on average, research universities are more expensive to operate and attend than are masters and baccalaureate institutions.
OR STUDY STATES: AVERAGE STATE INVESTMENT PLUS STUDENT INVESTMENT PER STUDENT, Carnegie Type of Institution (FTE, FY 2002-03)29148115Number of Institutionsin 11 States28,50613,5219,1864,070Average Numberof Students$9,637$6,083$5,918$6,161Average StateInvestment per Student$16,084$10,910$9,561$8,932Average State Investment plus Tuition & Fees per StudentCarnegie ClassificationDoctoral Research Extensive(e.g., ASU/UA)Doctoral Research Intensive(e.g., NAU)Masters(e.g., ASU at the West campus)Baccalaureate(none in Arizona)The Carnegie Classification is the leading typology of American colleges and universities. Colleges and universities are grouped based on their degree-granting activities; classifications do not indicate anything about the quality of the institutions. PERCENT OF TOTAL ENROLLMENT IN STATE'S RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES (Full Time Equivalent (FTE), FY 2002-03) MinnesotaCaliforniaWisconsinMissouriPennsylvaniaNorth CarolinaColoradoWashingtonMichiganOregonArizona38%42%44%46%48%52%63%63%69%79%93%Study States
Challenge 3: The inefficiency of the current system
On the one hand, Arizona's individual universities are quite efficient compared to their peers. And the collaboration with community colleges is strong. Yet the system as a whole is comparatively inefficient. Unlike many other states, Arizona currently relies heavily on research universities to deliver undergraduate education. This model is expensive to maintain, and the state can't afford to grow with this inefficient university model in place. The Arizona University System must provide both baccalaureate opportunities and research strength and prestige in a cost-efficient manner.18 A Redesigned Public University System A Redesigned Public University System 19
In the majority of study states, state investment is greater than student investment. However, three states have crossed the 50 percent threshold and are closer to privatization.
RIVATIZATION INDEX*0Tuition Free/State Investment0.10.20.30.40.50.6Private/Student Investment0.7* PRIVATIZATION INDEX The majority of the funds that fuel the instructional mission of public universities comes form state investment and student investment. A simple formula to describe the state-student partnership is a Privatization Index, which is determined by: Privatization Index (PI) = Total Student Investment divided by Total State Investment. If tuition is free for students, then PI = 0. If the student pays all the tuition, then PI = 1. California State UniversityUniversity of CaliforniaNorth CarolinaArizona**MinnesotaMissouriWashingtonMichiganOregonColoradoPennsylvania** Arizona data does not reflect last two tuition increases. These increases would put Arizona closer to Missouri. Low | HighLow | HighLow | HighLow | HighUNDERGRADUATE RESIDENT TUITION AND FEE PATTERNS IN STUDY STATESArizonaCaliforniaColoradoMichiganMinnesotaMissouriNorth CarolinaOregonPennsylvaniaWisconsinWashingtonDoctoral ResearchExtensiveDoctoral ResearchIntensiveMasters I and IIBaccalaureate$4,066$6,570$3,700$5,065$8,030$6,662$4,252$3,546$8,622$5,835$5,154$4,086$7,023$5,900$10,990$8,030$6,662$4,450$3,780$12,784$5,866$5,972$4,076$2,936$3,370$4,332 NS$6,752$3,454$3,174$6,085 NS NS$4,076$2,936$3,386$6,978 NS$7,995$3,519$3,174$6,085 NS NS$4,054$2,516$3,460$4,586$4,894$4,260$2,985$2,548$5,039$3,210$4,074$4,054$3,732$5,068$6,190$6,306$5,940$3,626$3,672$12,402$4,865$4,453 NS$2,680$2,270 NS$7,607$3,618$2,765$3,528$8,218 NS$3,907 NS$2,742$2,811 NS$7,668$4,260$3,392$3,528$9,210 NS$3,907Source: All information of tuition patterns comes from analyzing web pages of the individual universities. The information is for the 2004-2005 academic year.
In all study states,
students had a substantially greater number of
choices in tuition levels than in Arizona.
Challenge 4: Financial constraints on both the state and the students
Expanding educational opportunities and expanding the research capacity within the university system will require more money. Yet neither the state nor its citizens can afford to sustain the desired growth using the inefficient delivery model that exists today. Arizona's tax base will grow in the future, but so will demands for all public services. So higher education can't expect that the average amount of funding per student in the future will remain at today's levels. At the same time, Arizona's citizens must be able to afford college, which means there are constraints on how much they can be charged. Arizona must determine how to do much more with a little less in the future if it is to sustain access, enhance quality, and strengthen university research. 20 A Redesigned Public University System A Redesigned Public University System 21
Arizona State University, based in Tempe, would become a premier metropolitan university through its vision of "One University in Many Places"— ASU at the Tempe campus, ASU at the Downtown Phoenix campus, ASU at the West campus near Glendale, and ASU at the Polytechnic campus in Mesa, each with its own well-defined mission.
Northern Arizona University, based in Flagstaff, would, despite its name, broaden and enhance its statewide university presence by offering premier undergraduate, professional, doctoral, and masters programs through 2+2 collaborations with community colleges and distance learning, strengthened by the quality undergraduate, graduate, and research programs on its Flagstaff campus.
Still More to Do
The Feasibility and Planning Study Work Group concluded that Changing Directions needs time to work, since, as Good to Great author Jim Collins points out, transformation from good to great requires discipline to stay the course. Organizations that lurch back and forth, changing focus with every new leader, new trend, or new fad, fail to make the transformation.
Nevertheless, there is still more to do to address the challenges facing Arizona over the next two decades. So this redesign plan includes two new features, which capture the essence of the way to the future:
• Mission differentiation within each university: For a long time, there was little official distinction among Arizona's universities. Now, because of Changing Directions, distinct missions are being defined for each university. The next step is to define the differentiation within each university so as to further enhance choices in higher education services and costs.
• A process for expanding on demand: Essentially, these are guidelines for expanding the capacity of
the university system to serve students, while
avoiding the higher-risk approach of "build it and they will come."
In some respects, it is not really accurate to reflect this
as "the strategy," because these two features provide a number of points for possible departure in the future, depending on how circumstances evolve. Yet, the features provide a solid basis for moving forward: clear direction to the state's universities about how they must proceed to advance this agenda, and a strong nexus for working with the community colleges to guarantee access to quality undergraduate education through continued collaboration between the state's universities and the community colleges.
NAU Campus — Old Main
ASU at the Downtown Phoenix campus
Taken together, these trends present Arizona with such significant challenges in the next decade or two that "more of the same" will not serve the state well. Arizona's rapidly expanding economy and shifting social fabric will simply demand much more and much different postsecondary education than in the past. Without substantial change, the highly educated/highly skilled workforce that Arizona needs for the future simply will not be available – and the higher education system won't be able to assure that all of the state's citizens will be able to contribute to and benefit from Arizona's new economy.
At the same time, however, the redesign process revealed a direction for Arizona to follow to address each of the four challenges, and still retain the current three-university system — at least for now.
So the path for redesign of the Arizona University System adopted by the Arizona Board of Regents builds on the existing infrastructure of three state universities, working closely with the locally controlled community colleges, yet it proposes moving forward in substantially different ways of doing business than featured in current practice. Two features, mission differentiation within each university and a process for expanding on demand, capture the essence of the way to the future.
Let Changing Directions
Take Hold
A key factor in the "three universities for now" decision was Changing Directions. Just three years ago, in 2002, the Arizona Board of Regents initiated a comprehensive review of university revenue sources and management strategies to provide the universities with the resources they need to achieve their goals of providing high quality education, research, and service to the state of Arizona.
A significant element of the Changing Directions initiative was to revise the Board's policy framework to enable the university presidents to reshape their programs to better meet the needs of Arizona's citizens and communities. Having hired exceptional individuals to lead the state's three universities, the Regents wanted to give these leaders the leverage necessary to manage the institutions as effectively
as possible.
As a result of these changes, each university's mission has become more focused, and each university has more flexibility to establish tuition plans, admissions standards, and programs and courses to match its mission. That first phase of Changing Directions defined the missions of the institutions, as follows:
The University of Arizona in Tucson would proceed with its plans to become a premier research university, adopting more rigorous admissions requirements at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. The University of Arizona South would be developed in Sierra Vista to provide lower-cost instruction at the bachelor's and master's degree levels in Southern Arizona.
UA Tucson student life22 A Redesigned Public University System A Redesigned Public University System 23
and 2+2 models, where the missions of community colleges to provide lower-division instruction and the universities' focus on upper-division undergraduate, professional, and graduate instruction are blended to provide a cohesive and efficient delivery of the total undergraduate education.
Baccalaureate-Focused Institutions
All three Arizona universities provide substantial undergraduate education. As described earlier, however, the projected growth in the future will require substantial growth in undergraduate education within the universities.
Because the largest growth in demand is projected to occur in the greater Phoenix region, Arizona State University will share a significant portion of the responsibility in this area.
ASU at the East campus and ASU at the West campus will remain primarily undergraduate institutions. ASU at the East campus will develop as a Polytechnic campus, and ASU at the West campus will develop as a liberal arts and sciences-focused campus. While both of these institutions will be primarily undergraduate focused, masters programs and selective doctoral programs may be considered when those programs are deemed central to the workforce and economic development needs of the communities they serve and when consistent with their missions. As it evolves, ASU at the Downtown Phoenix campus will also have a significant role in undergraduate education. Each of these three campuses will grow substantially (15,000 to 20,000) to accommodate at least some of the growth anticipated for the Phoenix area.
Ultimately, the growth in undergraduate education in the Tucson area must be accommodated by UA South and NAU. It is anticipated that UA South and/or NAU may ultimately become fully developed baccalaureate and professional master's level institutions serving Southern Arizona if justified by enrollment growth.
Initially, it is anticipated that these institutions, combined with the availability of collaborative programs described earlier, such as 2+2 programs, will provide sufficient expansion to meet demand. In the future, as Arizona grows to 8 or 9 million residents, it is quite likely that additional baccalaureate-focused institutions will be justified, at which point they may be created within one of the three universities or as new, additional, freestanding institutions under the Board
of Regents.
One of the most difficult challenges for the universities in establishing these undergraduate-focused units within the universities will be changing the faculty reward structure to reflect different faculty roles consistent with the different missions of units within the universities. Currently, workload variability exists at all three universities, with differences between campuses and some between colleges and schools within campuses and universities. It is essential that the universities continue to build differentiated workload models to ensure that faculty are rewarded in keeping with their expectations relative to their peer community, and aspirations, and the differentiated mission emphases between teaching and research.
ASU at the Polytechnic campus
Arizona's university system used to be one in which there was little official distinction among institutions. The first phase of Changing Directions changed that, with distinct missions being defined among institutions. This phase now moves to the next step, further defining the distinctions among universities, but even more importantly defining the differentiation within each of the three institutions. Clearly establishing and articulating these differences is particularly important in Arizona because the idea of differentiating within institutions is an unusual and untested, though promising, concept that will need clear understanding and direction up front to ensure success.
The features of this differentiation include clear delineation of two distinct types:
1. Differentiation by services provided, and
2. Differentiation in the way these services are funded.
1. Differentiation by Type of Service Provided
Under this feature, each of the universities will provide a distinct type of service.
The Focus on Undergraduate Education
Because of the expected explosion of demand for undergraduate educational opportunities, each of the institutions will be expected to develop explicit ways to respond to this demand. This increase in demand will come not only from recent high school graduates, but also from adults needing and desiring to return to college to finish their degrees or to upgrade their work skills to compete in a knowledge-based economy.
Community College Collaboration
Arizona is one of only five states with over half its higher education enrollment in two-year schools. This makes it critical that Arizona's universities and community collages collaborate to ensure efficient transfers and easy integration for community college students who want to earn bachelor's degrees. Arizona's universities have developed exceptionally strong collaborative relationships with the state's community colleges, and will maintain and further enhance these relationships. All current transfer policies and practices will be retained at all three universities. Whenever curricular changes are being considered at one of the three universities, be it at the institution, school, or program level, it is essential that the community college perspective be represented in these discussions. Only through such close collaboration can easy transfer of students from one sector to another be assured.
Furthermore, NAU and UA South will build on their collaborations through expansion of community college collaborative efforts, such as the education centers
Real mission differentiation not only sets distinctive missions for different institutions, but also includes explicit and binding commitments and guidelines to enforce such differentiation.24 A Redesigned Public University System A Redesigned Public University System 25
by working more closely with community colleges). Particular care must be given to ensuring that students of all racial/ethnic and economic backgrounds have high quality education at all campus locations. Additional attention must be paid to enhancing various learner-centered educational approaches of relevance and
import to students of diversity, non-traditional students, and distance education students, among others.
All three universities must become more embedded in the community, enhancing and investing more resources in outreach to elementary and middle school students in underrepresented racial/ethnic groups and recruiting these students into the university system.
Measuring what matters — performance, teaching, resources, and cost-effectiveness — is critical as the state responds to the higher education challenges that lie ahead. Essentially, the state and its universities must ensure that each student is served equitably, each student is able to complete his or her education efficiently, and the end result is effective. While performance in these areas is often difficult to measure, the ultimate goal is not, which is: Arizona must increase the percentage of its population holding a bachelor's degree or higher.
The Need for Stronger Research Universities
Today, Arizona's universities are in various stages of development in research and advanced education efforts, but greater stature for all is an imperative for Arizona to compete in the 21st century. As a growing state, with an emerging state economy that will demand a more competitive position with respect to graduate education and research, Arizona needs to strengthen its competitiveness in these areas.
In this redesign, all three universities will retain their current research missions. ASU and UA both seek to enhance their strength and national prestige in research and advanced degree studies, which will require both new approaches to funding research and clearly differentiated missions for specific colleges and schools within the institutions.
At ASU, this will mean building out the current plan of "One University in Many Places." This plan identifies that the greatest level of research intensity will occur at ASU at the Tempe campus, building on its strengths
and infrastructure. ASU at the Polytechnic campus, ASU at the Downtown Phoenix campus, and ASU at the West campus will have research missions in keeping with their respective missions and focus.
In the case of the UA, the intention is to focus the
entire institution in Tucson more directly on research
at the highest levels.
NAU will retain its primary focus on premier undergraduate education and will develop and broaden its research and graduate education mission as appropriate for a mature doctoral university located in Northern Arizona. Based on its core campus at Flagstaff, NAU will provide undergraduate, graduate, and professional education programs through its more
than 100 campuses and sites throughout the state, delivering education statewide via telecommunications, educational centers, 2+2 collaborations with community colleges, and, potentially, freestanding four-year colleges in the future.
NAU-Yuma Campus
Graduate Education and Research
The distinction between "research universities" and "teaching universities" is not properly a dichotomy, but a matter of degree. All true universities are committed
to both the creation and the dissemination of knowledge, but they balance these activities in very different ways. In Arizona a greater differentiation of missions among institutions is required, but these are distinctions
of degree.
Graduate education provides the bridge that links teaching and research. At the doctoral level, rigorous intellectual development is based primarily on research, or learning through discovery, and this requires a faculty devoted to research. At the master's level, instruction can be quite focused on training for the practice of professions, such as teaching and nursing, and this can be accomplished by faculty devoted to the "scholarship of teaching," as Ernest Boyer would have said, and augmented by practitioners.
The state of Arizona must provide the full spectrum of graduate degrees of high quality, with special attention to access to professional master's degrees for adults constrained by limitations of geography and time.
Tracking Mission Success
Equally as challenging for the universities is the necessity to provide this new incoming wave of undergraduates an environment that actively nurtures and engages them from first admission to graduation. As scores of recent articles point out, a major problem is that many students enter college, but never finish. Higher education is learning what works best to help students achieve their degrees, and Arizona should expect no less of its universities. Many of the new first-generation students who will seek access to the universities may need different or enhanced resources to ensure a reasonable chance of success. With mission differentiation, the universities will provide different models of undergraduate instruction, with differing teaching and cost structures.
Arizona must continue to find a way to provide high quality undergraduate education and enhance its research agenda while it also achieves its primary goals of enhancing access and diversity (for example,
Creating Conditions for Diversity
1. What works to get underrepresented students
prepared to go to college?
2. What attracts them to a college?
3. What works to retain them?
The ABOR Feasibility and Planning Study Work Group invited Dr. Patricia Gándara, who leads the Education Policy Studies emphasis at University of California, Davis, to address these three questions. Dr. Gándara's response:
What's effective at getting minorities into college?
• Access to rigorous K-12 courses (college preparation)
• Access to accurate information and counseling
• Attending to home culture
• Supportive peer group
• Careful monitoring
• Financial aid
What attracts minority students (Latinos) to college?
• Critical mass/friends
• Familiarity
• Low cost
• Proximity
• Reputation for being minority-friendly
• Selectivity and "reputation" are NOT as important
What retains minority students in college?
• Good campus climate
• Opportunities to engage in BOTH minority and
non-minority groups
• Integration into campus life
• Academic and social support systems
• Faculty who know how to teach and encourage them
• Financial support
Source: Dr. Gándara's Presentation, February 8, 2005.26 A Redesigned Public University System A Redesigned Public University System 27
level of funding, the share borne by students could be established, perhaps as a percentage of the total costs. The universities would receive, in addition to the funding for undergraduate instruction, all the externally funded research they could attract, plus explicit state and student funding to support the increased research necessary to bring their research capacity to that of their peers.
The net effect of this approach would be to:
• Make the funding of both instruction and research more transparent to all Arizona stakeholders;
• Provide an easily understood and defensible differentiation of state subsidy for instruction
and research;
• Recognize that technology-oriented programs that rely on state-of-the-art equipment and laboratories will inherently cost more than nontechnology-intensive programs; and
• Create a varied tuition structure across the university system that provides greater access and opportunity for students and that reflects the different costs associated with different institutional missions.
As a result,
• Tuition and mandatory fee ranges would be highest at the campuses where costs for research
are greatest, notably UA Main and ASU at the
Tempe campus.
• Tuition and mandatory fee ranges would be lower at the campuses where costs for research are lower, ranging from the NAU Mountain Campus to ASU at the Polytechnic campus, ASU at the West campus, and ASU at the Downtown Phoenix campus.
• Tuition and mandatory fee ranges would be lowest at the 2+2 locations or other predominantly baccalaureate-instruction-focused locations throughout the state, including NAU-Yuma and
UA South.
Differentiation of Arizona's cost of higher education
will predictably bring change to the process by which the Regents set tuition. However, it is critical that the Arizona Board of Regents and the universities stay committed to the spirit of the current process. Students and other interested parties should continue to be involved by receiving notice of proposed changes in tuition and fees and by participating in each annual public tuition hearing.
ASU at the West campus
2. Differentiation by Price
and Cost
For two reasons, real mission differentiation must also be accompanied by real differentiation in both the cost
of the education provided and the price charged to students (tuition).
First, the cost structure of an institution dedicated solely or predominantly to undergraduate instruction is lower than the cost structure of an institution that combines undergraduate instruction with graduate education and research activity.
Second, Arizona must find a way to provide undergraduate education less expensively and devote additional resources to research, or it simply cannot achieve its dual goals of enhancing access and diversity while also enhancing its research effort.
To achieve this differentiation by price and cost, the state of Arizona and the Board of Regents will need to modify the current funding policies and practices to enforce and motivate, through finances, compliance with the spirit of mission differentiation. Separate components of financial support for instruction and research will need to be created.
The unique mission differentiation being proposed for Arizona, particularly the differentiation between research and instructional responsibilities of different units/campuses within each institution, makes this task particularly important and challenging. To some extent, the Board's funding structure already captured a distinction between research and instruction. Yet, that is not truly the case because the amounts provided for undergraduate instruction implicitly include substantial funding for graduate education and research.
One example of an alternative model would be to fund undergraduate instruction at a level comparable to the funding at undergraduate-focused institutions in peer states. This would reduce the explicit level of funding for undergraduate instruction, but would ensure sufficient funding for this purpose, evidenced by the fact that other states provide quality services with this level of resources. In doing so, however, every assurance must be made that Arizona's universities will provide overall compensation to its faculty and staff sufficient to attract high quality scholars and employees. Within this overall
UA Wildcat Stadium28 A Redesigned Public University System A Redesigned Public University System 29
A final, but critically important component to the finance plan is the need for a strong state need-based financial aid system. Given the likely increase in tuition that will be driven by limits in state capacity to support demand and the tremendous increase in demand, more financial aid is needed to assure that students from low-income families can afford Arizona higher education.
Arizona already lags well behind national averages in state aid and in the combined aid provided from all sources. It is both imprudent and organizationally unsound to expect that the institutions will be able to provide sufficient aid in the future to meet the needs of the state's population. Every dollar an institution devotes to financial aid is a dollar that cannot be spent on its primary focus to provide strong instruction and, if within the mission, research. Thus, funding financial aid within an institution creates natural tension. State need-based aid, on the other hand, fits comfortably the state's overall responsibility to keep college affordable and provides much greater transparency of the availability of aid.
Both the state and its universities must assure that
in providing financial aid, they provide equitable attention to assisting both traditional and nontraditional students and to assisting both those students who initially enroll in the institutions and those who transfer into the institutions.
Financial Aid — The Missing Link in Arizona
UA Tucson Campus — Old Main30 A Redesigned Public University System A Redesigned Public University System 31
be redefined; that is, when the level of service currently approved and being provided can be moved to another level. Furthermore, when an expansion or redefinition of mission is being considered based on established criteria, the Board of Regents must be sure to examine not only what is being gained, but also what may be lost.
Most obviously, the Board must assess the need for the additional service. Redundancy and associated competition in service are not inherently bad unless unnecessary and an inefficient duplication of service. Less obvious but equally important, the Board of Regents should always examine whether creating this new capacity will erode the level of service currently being provided (i.e., loss of community college or loss of
cost-effective delivery of baccalaureate education).
For example, it is recognized that Maricopa County's West Valley may require new research investments.
ASU would be expected to bring all of its resources to bear to address research needs in the West Valley, building on their campus presence in the region, without eroding the lower-cost, low-tuition model of ASU at the West campus.
Growth in the demand for baccalaureate education within the Arizona University System should follow the expand on demand philosophy:
• First and foremost, the university system must coordinate its efforts to complement those of the community colleges in Arizona. The community colleges will continue to be expected to be the first source of educational opportunity at the lower-division level in communities that lack the critical mass to support a baccalaureate institution.
• As a need for university-level services emerges, the university system will initially establish distance learning centers and services, both on-site and on-line, until reaching the critical mass necessary for sustaining a more significant university presence, as defined below.
• The university system will create 2+2 university facilities on community college campuses similar to the NAU-Yuma model (or other partnership models) when the demand reaches a sustaining level. The university system will develop full campuses when there is a critical mass (approximately 2,000 FTE upper-division students based on a Texas analysis that indicates 3,500 FTE students is the "minimum size needed to achieve economies of scale"). These campuses should be relatively independent with a campus executive officer and full control of their own faculty, facilities, and staff. Although this approach for growing a larger Arizona University System to meet geographical demand will be lower cost than other options, it still costs, and funding methods will need to be developed.
• The university system will expand the mission services of institutions in the future beyond their current Regents-approved missions when it is demonstrated that the demand for services (instruction or research) from a community requires an expansion of mission and when there is the physical and financial capacity of the university system and the state to meet the increased demand for services. (Expanding research capacity of existing research universities will often better serve new communities than will creating new research institutions.)
ASU at the Tempe campus — Gammage Auditorium
The second feature of the redesign is a process to expand the capacity of the system to serve students based on increases in demand. This expand on demand design, a term borrowed from NAU's current strategy for responding to statewide needs, provides not only a positive approach to follow, but also implicitly eschews the often promoted but high-risk approach of "build it and they will come." Arizona simply can't afford an anticipatory approach; yet it is well positioned within its current system of universities and community colleges to respond as the demand develops.
To be able to respond nimbly to increasing demand, however, requires a defined set of guidelines for determining when an institution's or unit's mission can
opulation 15-24 year-olds Growth RateGROWTH RATES: POPULATION 15-24 YEAR-OLDS AND HISPANIC POPULATION, 2004–2009-2.5% — 1.4% 1.5% — 7.6%7.7% — 12.4% 12.5% — 15.2%15.3% — 22.6% Note: X.X% = Population 15-24 Growth Rate. (X.X%) = Hispanic Population Growth Rate. Yuma County12.4%(18.8%)La Paz County1.4%(14.7%)Maricopa County14.7%(81.0%)Pima County10.2%(22.1%)Pinal County22.0%(35.6%)Santa Cruz County21.1%(16.4%)Cochise County7.0%(18.1%)Graham County-2.8%(0.2%)Greenlee County-0.2%(-0.1%)Gila County8.3%(18.8%)Navajo County10.1%(21.8%)Apache County4.8%(12.0%)Coconino County7.8%(22.8%)Yavapai County16.2%(34.4%)Mohave County18.4%(30.8%)32 A Redesigned Public University System
This university redesign sets a path for the Arizona University System to carry out its mission to provide quality education and access in ways that will meet the demands of the next decades. It also provides a commitment to accountability to assure the public that, in exchange for its support, it can expect certain results and choices.
CONCLUSIONRegent Chris Herstam
Regent Benjamin Graff
David Longanecker
Executive Director, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education — Project Consultant
Mary Jo Waits
Staff Director, ABOR Feasibility and Planning Study Work Group
ABOR Central Office
Cathy McGonigle
ABOR Deputy Executive Director
Kathleen Church
Vice Provost
Nancy Jordan
Associate Vice President, Community Development
Mark Searle
Vice President and Provost, ASU at the West campus
Christine K. Wilkinson
Senior Vice President and Secretary of the University
Kathryn Cruz-Uribe
Dean of Social and Behavioral Sciences
Patricia Haeuser
Director of Planning and Institutional Research
Fred Hurst
Dean of Distance Learning
Nick Lund
Executive Director, NAU-Yuma
Edith Auslander
Vice President and Senior Associate to the President
Juan Garcia
Vice Provost for Academic Affairs
Randy Groth
Dean and Associate Vice President, UA South
Jory Hancock
Chair of the Faculty and
Head of Dance
Rufus Glasper
Maricopa Community College District Chancellor
Roy Flores
Pima Community College District Chancellor
Don Schoening
Arizona Western College
Joshua Allen
Northern Arizona University
Diane McCarthy
Arizona State University
Sandra Ruhl
University of Arizona
Tom Browning
Greater Phoenix Business Leadership, Inc.
David Mauer
Greater Prescott Chamber
of Commerce
Rick Myers
Ron Shoopman
Southern Arizona
Leadership Council
Terry Calaway
Central Arizona College
Armando Flores
Pinnacle West Corporation
Doris Ford
Southern Arizona
Laurence Gishey
Northern Arizona University
Frances Bernat
Arizona Faculties Council
Diane Bellock
Tri-University Classifed Staff Executive Board
Serena Unrein
Arizona Students Association
Seven Stakeholder Groups worked on university redesign with the Feasibility and Planning Study Work Group. These groups, each one consisting of approximately 25 members, were generous with their time and ideas and represented critical "stakes" in Arizona's public university system.
Stakeholder Group Conveners
The following people were also generous with their time and ideas and played key roles in the ABOR Feasibility and Planning Study.
Stella Galaviz
Executive Assistant, Arizona Board of Regents
Dan Anderson
Assistant Executive Director for Institutional Analysis, Arizona Board of Regents
Cecilia Plonski
Administrative Assistant, Arizona Board of Regents
Publication Design
Rain Visual Strategy + Design
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.


text:
Heart Cocktail Ring $375
Shower the tops of your fingers with a little love from NYC-based jewelry designer Jules Kim, whose new Heart Cocktail Rings harmoniously marry elegance with downtown style.
Hooray for Boobies! Socks $25
Subtle but effective, Soxfords' "Hooray for Boobies!" mid-calf socks add a dash of daring style while helping raise money for breast cancer research. For each pair of the dark grey Peruvian Pima cotton socks sold, $5 will be donated to support Breast Cancer Awareness efforts.
Cassandra Yap
EROTIC A-Z Print $50
A passion for vintage pin-ups led to artist Cassandra Yap's "EROTIC A-Z" alphabet prints, in which each letter features of a spicy photomontage. Printed on thick 315gsm fine art paper, each "naughty letter" is signed by the Singapore-born, London-based artist.
Dorothy Iannone: You Who Read Me With Passion Must Forever Be My Friends $35
In her search for "ecstatic unity," celebrated artist Dorothy Iannone creates beautifully subversive works that boldly explore sexual liberation and feminist ideologies. Her progressive image+text style is at once surprising, thoughtful, inspiring, profane, humorous and taboo-shattering. This brilliant compendium binds together a half-decade of familiar and rarely scene works for an in-depth look at Iannone's signature style.
"Can't Touch This" Temporary Tattoo $5
For no other purpose than fun, Tattly applies superior design to temporary tattoos. Arm yourself with this bold-font declaration—designed by Paper Jam Press founder Arianna Orland—to let them know you're too legit.
Jean Jullien
Bum $134
French artist Jean Jullien takes a cheeky look at beach culture through his series of visual ruminations entitled "La Plage." Inspired by the social oddities of hanging seaside and "how naked it all gets," Jullien created pared-down yet vibrant images of ice cream melting, people swimming and of course, the ubiquitous butt. His abstract, Rothko-like giclée print called "Bum" is the perfect subtle reference ready to shine at home.
Bonnie Bling
Taps Aff Badge $16
Whether celebrating the dogs days of summer or just feeling a little rowdy, Scottish phrase "Taps Aff!" incites a rebellious vibe sure to turn a few heads or better yet, inspire its actual meaning—to shed your shirt. This cheeky little badge is a fashionable reminder to always keep a level of spontaneity in your step, no matter the weather.
Gravel & Gold Goods
Boob Tote $87
Gravel & Gold is a San Francisco-based shop of kitschy wonders that's serious about knowing (and supporting) the artists behind the wares they stock. Their in-house line G&G Goods is nothing to scoff at either. Bare it all with their hand-printed and -sewn canvas Boob Tote, which adds a little thrill to those routine activities, like the commute to work or venture to the grocery store. Details like an interior pocket and heavy red leather straps make the bag as high quality as it is provocative.
Province Apothecary
Sex Oil $18
Sex Oil from Toronto-based Province Apothecary doesn't hide behind any vague adjectives or cute lingo. The name is as clear as the oil's list of ingredients, blending coconut oil, sunflower seed oil, evening primrose oil, GMO-free vitamin E and more—a blessing for those with sensitive skin. This personal lubricant can also be used a body oil—it dries to a satin finish and doesn't need to be washed off.
Lonely Lingerie $99
Founded in 2009, New Zealand label Lonely perfectly treads the line between sexy, romantic, modern and classic. While their entire collection is covetable, with cut-outs, velvet straps, lace and an impeccable eye for detail, the Sabel bra in black, deep green, electric blue—and soon in red and navy—is as comfortable as it is alluring.
Psychic Stone (Evil Expel) $800
FriendsWithYou's psychic stones are magical sculptures tailored to the owner's deepest wishes and desires. Create a customized extra-sensory miracle-worker through a consultation with the artists, who use an experiential process to permeate the stone with personalized spiritual vibes. Stunning works of art, these pieces display a frozen moment of magical mysticism and ward off evil vibes.
Ice Sculpture $580
"Getting iced" takes on a whole new meaning when one of Okamoto Studio's divine custom ice sculptures is involved. Flawlessly constructed and beautiful to behold, the temporal quality of this unexpected gift only adds to its physical and conceptual beauty. Crystalline, magical and as effervescent as it is evanescent, while the sculpture itself might melt away, the extreme impact of receiving something so sublimely beautiful will never fade. Delivers within New York's Tri-State area.
Cards Against Humanity
Cards Against Humanity $25
The game that started with a Kickstarter campaign and often ends with awkward conversations about tentacle porn is the ultimate good-time gift. Referred to as a party game for horrible people, Cards Against Humanity causes endless uncomfortable moments, huge amounts of rolling on the floor laughter, and unforgettable images and scenarios which will be forever etched into your brain, such as a micropig wearing a tiny raincoat and booties, a sad fat dragon with no friends and many more.
Royal Botanicals
Rose Geranium Bath Soak $45
Revitalize your favorite lady with a bottle of Royal Botanicals' Rose Geranium Bath Soak. This invigorating blend includes Dead Sea salts, Epsom salts and organic essential oils of the "flower of constancy," housed in a Victorian Era-inspired amber glass bottle.
Hand in Hand
Ethically-Sourced Soaps $61
Vermont's Bill Glabb and Courtney Apple create Fair Trade triple milled shea butter soaps that literally save lives. With their "buy a bar, give a bar" program, the socially-responsible company makes soap available to children in need, and a portion of the proceeds is used for rainforest conservation projects. Hand in Hand wraps each bar of lavender, orange blossom and white tea soap in eco-friendly packaging and provides a free carbon offset.
Constantine I Bracelet $110
New York-based jewelry designer Caroline Ventura makes delicate handmade pieces that fuse feminine and masculine characteristics. Such is the case with this simple 14K gold bracelet with a simple triangle gliding along the chain.