SoldierGriz said:
PlayerRep said:
SoldierGriz said:
My only problem with these cuts is they don't go far enough...
They seem to "spread" the distribution of cuts across the breadth of programs. This is a minimalist approach that probably "cuts" many already known losses. Predicting retirements and attrition is not that hard. My guess is there will be very few "forced cuts."
Where are the ideas that fully divest programs? Where are the ideas that double-down on successful programs? Where are the ideas that make an investment in relevant, new programs to attract students?
There HAS TO BE an additional phase to this plan, right? Let's go Seth...time to shine!
This plan doesn't spread the cuts. Some departments aren't being cut at all. There are going to be forced cuts
PR - look at the list...1-3 position cuts across 32 different programs...it's a wide swath. We'll see about forced cuts. My bet is they won't have to force any. The numbers likely accommodate natural attrition...we'll see.
Either way - this reveal does not contain BIG ideas...
Have you even looked at the report?
23 department heads to 10. That's down 13.
16 departments have no reductions. That isn't consistent with across the board.
English down 6.
Modern and Classical Languages and Literatures down 7.5.
I counted only 26 departments with 1 - 3, not 32, in a quick skim.
Disagree. Cutting this much and this deep is big idea by definition.
And aren't these six communities of interdisciplinary excellence new?
Artistic Expression & Communication
Science & Technology
Business & Entrepreneurship
Environment & Sustainability
Health & Human Development
Justice, Policy & Public Service