UM has 'enrollment problem,' Engstrom tells regents

[OldtiredGRiz]

I posted something similar last summer about marketing and recruitment. My son is 2013 high school graduate. He wasn't interested in either Montana school because he is a baseball player. However, he received a lot of cogent, well produced information from MSU and only 1 or 2 more bland pieces from UM. He attended a large suburban high school (2,500 students) that has solid college attendance figures -- nearly 70% of the graduates attend college. From his school, 17 students went to MSU (3 of them I know personally and they are studying engineering) and 5 went to UM. In my opinion, UM needs a stronger recruitment and marketing program, focusing (for financial reasons) on the Western US.

 

[BadlandsGrizFan]

Oh and PlayerRep, I also noticed your article was from 2012, I suggest using a more current source of information, specially when dealing with the oil industry. I would suggest trying to find something within the month next time you reference something with oil or gas being the topic, the industry tends to change drastically on a monthly basis....that is all

You realize that most of the drilling in the Bakken area occurred prior to 2012? Are you telling us that the geology changed since 2012? That's pretty funny. Stop making unsupported and dumb statements, so I don't have to call you on them.

The total numbers of rigs, yes 2012 was the peak year. That's because we're drilling more efficiently and understand the formation more every day. Rig counts have nothing to do with production numbers. The peak number of wells drilled will be in 2025, and that's just the Bakken alone. The 3Forks nearly doubled the amount of possible production. Also oil prices have to do with the whole equation as well. When price is up, they will move rigs into Montana for more exploring, when it drops, they come back to where they know it is.
I don't know how you can argue my statement as to how much the geology affects a states production. If the Montana border started on the other side of McKenzie county for example, than MT would be benefiting from this much more than ND. So ya I'd say geology has almost everything to do with it.

 

[tnt]

Engstrom inherited years of the previous administration that simply neglected a cogent plan for a future that most of on campus recognized, the most obvious is a building binge at the expense of classroom instruction.

Maybe RE was not the best choice, BUT if any recall, there was NOT long or stellar list of applicants for the job when Dennison stepped down. Most stayed away because they had a good idea of what awaited them....and it had little to do with football.

One thing RE has done is clear out enough of the "old Guard" to allow some change. It is very true there were few who wnated to follow Dennison and the mess he created, which will take years to recover form. Ifrastucture is not program. Its a shame he had to deal with the Athletic issues before he could really start to clean house. Foleys and Coutures departure was a good start. There have been other less known names leave that have had a great effect. He may pull it off yet. Nearly half the decline in enrollment was from the economy, but not quite in the way described here. The University (including the Vo-tech) was filled up with non traditional students whose way was being paid for by "grants" (mills shutting down, expanded voc rehab etc.) whether the change will come in time or not is anyones guess.

And yes the entire country is questioning the value of attending a University especially when the graduates aren't getting jobs......

I'm suprised thet PR didn't grab at the obvious which is the Freshman/Sophomore retention rate being high may indicate a recruiting problem, but will pay off the next two years UNLESS the transfer rate Jr levels say to , Nursing School being run in Missoula BY MSU (almost 200 of that two year total), out of state nursing programs, engineering schools etc is problematic

Come on...you gotta quit blaming Dennison for RE's screw ups. What problems? Do you mean those that resulted in the poorly advised self-imposed NCAA sanctions for what amounted to being busted for jaywalking? We keep hearing about Dennison's messes, but tell us what they were! We are all still waiting.....

This is classic "blame the guy before me for my screw ups". Any publically traded company would have fired Engstrom over this mess he created. The drop in enrollment and resulting financial pressures are a direct result of him not being qualified for the job.

The University of Montana deserves better!

P.S. Using the term "Vo-tech" shows your ignorance as this term hasn't been used since they were equivalent to high schools. Major changes have occurred on these campuses as they continue to evolve towards needed community college models...and those impacts are felt by both U of M and MSU.

The Vo-tech especially in Missoula very much applies..... calling them "College" shows your ignorance. The Missoula unit currently has over 100 students spread across several vocational programs (carpentry, recreational small engines, etc) WAITING for English psychology and communications courses from the mountain campus or in some instance the South Campus forcing them to travel from the fort. They have all of their other course work done and could be in the work force. INSTEAD they are competing for the same financial aid dollars (including the limited pell dollars) in order to complete their certifications. There are 12 (that I know of) dropping out entirely because they will not qualify for financial aid for lack of "academic progress" These are students who have done very well in their "vocational programs" but started (sometime 10 or more years ago) in a regular degree program an did poorly. Their cummulative GPA's include those failures. I'm not sure this was the intent, nor do i think they guy fixing my wave runner will be better at it if he has an associate degree. The plan to turn the Vo-Tech's into Jr Colleges never made sense and still doesn't. We had 4 year units duplicating service which was bad enough NOW we have duplication of services in the same community. (further dumbing down education) The plan Long ago was to save on instructional costs by being able to use master level instructors for basic core course's. Sadly that would require a different campus that could be accessed by Mountain campus students. But more importantly it failed completley adding costs and in the opinion of many faculty member at both units hurting enrollment.

You of course realize while you are at it that the Missoula college and Main campus are sending 50 -100 students per year to MSU from the associtae and pre-nursing programs not to mention what goes to SKC, Whitworth and Gonzaga (among others) sendin another 50 -100

Perhaps the moniker of Missoula College instead of Vo-tech will catch on, but probably about the same time Brawl of the wild catches on...... Until the BOR catches on that post-secondary education doesn't necessarily require a "college Degree" we are pretty much screwed.

NOBODY is blaming RE's problems on Dennison, but failure to realize Dennison had a lot to do the sad state of affairs at UM and their existing problems is foolish. The loss of academic reputation, decline in research, the mess in financial aid, the piss poor promotional/marketing efforts etc etc. didn't happen on RE's watch. He has his mess to fix and Dennisons to fix.

Who ever is president could use a lot of help. Fortunately he is getting it, and most of the noise is coming from folks who's only interest in what happens revolves around athletics or worse don't pay any attention until something happens like firing a coach, The fact is most boosters could care less when someone is thrown out of school whether its a preponderance of evidence or what ever standard unless its a starter. The DOJ standards are not going to be decided by a University President (this one or a different one)It'll happen in court. In case no one has noticed the "problems" with athletics are fixed

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Anybody have an opinion on how Royce Engstrom should be running the U?

 

[MrTitleist]

Anybody have an opinion on how Royce Engstrom should be running the U?

+1

 

[EverettGriz]

This thread can be summed up with an analogy:

The fan favorite on most teams is the back-up QB.

 

[PlayerRep]

This thread can be summed up with an analogy:

The fan favorite on most teams is the back-up QB.

So I hope you're not saying that the fan favorite at UM his year is not JJ? Also, not true that the fan favorite is usually the backup qb. Is that true at any schools in the Big Sky this year?

 

[BadlandsGrizFan]

This thread can be summed up with an analogy:

The fan favorite on most teams is the back-up QB.

Haha that is a good analogy :thumb:

 

[argh!]

The University would not be having this many major problems if Dennison was still the president.

The University would be better off if Jim Foley, Jim O'Day and Robin Pflugrad were still employed at UM.

Engstrom's bad decisions and statements created most of the public relations problems that the University has had. The Missoulian also contributed to the problem.

The athletic department has done just fine, especially given the bad decisions made by Engstrom to hurt it.

Most of the statements/opinions in the quoted post are nonsense and not supported by the facts.

hmmm - i see a guess, another guess, a third guess, and an opinion, followed by a call for someone else to provide "facts". very convincing.

 

[PlayerRep]

Oh and PlayerRep, I also noticed your article was from 2012, I suggest using a more current source of information, specially when dealing with the oil industry. I would suggest trying to find something within the month next time you reference something with oil or gas being the topic, the industry tends to change drastically on a monthly basis....that is all

You realize that most of the drilling in the Bakken area occurred prior to 2012? Are you telling us that the geology changed since 2012? That's pretty funny. Stop making unsupported and dumb statements, so I don't have to call you on them.

The total numbers of rigs, yes 2012 was the peak year. That's because we're drilling more efficiently and understand the formation more every day. Rig counts have nothing to do with production numbers. The peak number of wells drilled will be in 2025, and that's just the Bakken alone. The 3Forks nearly doubled the amount of possible production. Also oil prices have to do with the whole equation as well. When price is up, they will move rigs into Montana for more exploring, when it drops, they come back to where they know it is.
I don't know how you can argue my statement as to how much the geology affects a states production. If the Montana border started on the other side of McKenzie county for example, than MT would be benefiting from this much more than ND. So ya I'd say geology has almost everything to do with it.

Rigs and rig counts aren't geology. You just said that oil price impacts drilling in Montana. Price is not geology. There is no argument that geology impacts drilling. Of course, it has a significant influence. However, again, geology is not 99% of the difference between drilling and production differences between ND and MT. Why can't you just admit that you grossly exaggerated when you stated that?

You already said that price is an important factor. Regulatory matters are also important. Oil and gas boards. Spacing until sizes and shapes. The Fort Peck Indian reservation has not been overly friendly to oil companies, and actually has driven off Harold Hamm/Continental twice. Taxes. Transportation. Proximity to existing production and sweet spots. This can be influenced by geology, but it also is influenced by where oil and sweet spots were first found. Proximity to existing water disposal and servicing companies have some impact. Infrastructure for housing and related services. Location of rigs. Yes, I know they can be moved, but it's cheaper to move them less distance than longer distances.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

This thread can be summed up with an analogy:

The fan favorite on most teams is the back-up QB.

Why do you keep making things up, Everett? How do you know that "most" fans like the back-up? Did you ask them? Stop lying. Jeez.

 

[BadlandsGrizFan]

Oh and PlayerRep, I also noticed your article was from 2012, I suggest using a more current source of information, specially when dealing with the oil industry. I would suggest trying to find something within the month next time you reference something with oil or gas being the topic, the industry tends to change drastically on a monthly basis....that is all

You realize that most of the drilling in the Bakken area occurred prior to 2012? Are you telling us that the geology changed since 2012? That's pretty funny. Stop making unsupported and dumb statements, so I don't have to call you on them.

The total numbers of rigs, yes 2012 was the peak year. That's because we're drilling more efficiently and understand the formation more every day. Rig counts have nothing to do with production numbers. The peak number of wells drilled will be in 2025, and that's just the Bakken alone. The 3Forks nearly doubled the amount of possible production. Also oil prices have to do with the whole equation as well. When price is up, they will move rigs into Montana for more exploring, when it drops, they come back to where they know it is.
I don't know how you can argue my statement as to how much the geology affects a states production. If the Montana border started on the other side of McKenzie county for example, than MT would be benefiting from this much more than ND. So ya I'd say geology has almost everything to do with it.

Rigs and rig counts aren't geology. You just said that oil price impacts drilling in Montana. Price is not geology. There is no argument that geology impacts drilling. Of course, it has a significant influence. However, again, geology is not 99% of the difference between drilling and production differences between ND and MT. Why can't you just admit that you grossly exaggerated when you stated that?

You already said that price is an important factor. Regulatory matters are also important. Oil and gas boards. Spacing until sizes and shapes. The Fort Peck Indian reservation has not been overly friendly to oil companies, and actually has driven off Harold Hamm/Continental twice. Taxes. Transportation. Proximity to existing production and sweet spots. This can be influenced by geology, but it also is influenced by where oil and sweet spots were first found. Proximity to existing water disposal and servicing companies have some impact. Infrastructure for housing and related services. Location of rigs. Yes, I know they can be moved, but it's cheaper to move them less distance than longer distances.

Ok I will rephrase what I said so we can quit this argument and I'm sick of arguing. I will now say geology is the main driving factor in the difference between MT and ND's oil production numbers. Yes I was exaggerating! but not much

 

[ordigger]

Oh and PlayerRep, I also noticed your article was from 2012, I suggest using a more current source of information, specially when dealing with the oil industry. I would suggest trying to find something within the month next time you reference something with oil or gas being the topic, the industry tends to change drastically on a monthly basis....that is all

This is true, but on the other hand the industry in general can be very political based. Can't speak as to the Bakken, but one example is the state of New York did not move and allow fracking of wells when Marcellus drilling was booming. Now that boom is dead, as rig numbers in Pennsylvania have dropped drastically with many of those rigs being moved to Mid-Continent area, the Bakken, and some down in Texas/NM.

There is another factor at play to which is strictly financial. I've seen a few lease maps for the Bakken in Montana, and some of the companies that are major players there, have overextended themselves in places like PA (the Marcellus) and OH (the Utica - which has not played out as anticipated).

Hard to predict rig numbers though in 2025, as you yourself said its a changing dynamic, plus technology will also affect that. Rigs are going to go where the boom is. Who is to say that the Bakken is the best option in 2025? I see Jerry Brown is signing a bill allowing fracking in California, which will be challenged as it will get very political there.

However if drilling is allowed to happen in the Monterey Shale, and it starts to pay as expected, I can see many rigs migrating away from the Bakken (and thus Montana) and heading to California.The Monterey Shale is estimated at having the largest deep shale oil reserves in the world....and it will be a hot boom should drilling be allowed to happen.

So in the end, yes geology plays a major part but so does politics and so does investors. All together it makes for day-to-day changing environment.

 

[PlayerRep]

You realize that most of the drilling in the Bakken area occurred prior to 2012? Are you telling us that the geology changed since 2012? That's pretty funny. Stop making unsupported and dumb statements, so I don't have to call you on them.

The total numbers of rigs, yes 2012 was the peak year. That's because we're drilling more efficiently and understand the formation more every day. Rig counts have nothing to do with production numbers. The peak number of wells drilled will be in 2025, and that's just the Bakken alone. The 3Forks nearly doubled the amount of possible production. Also oil prices have to do with the whole equation as well. When price is up, they will move rigs into Montana for more exploring, when it drops, they come back to where they know it is.
I don't know how you can argue my statement as to how much the geology affects a states production. If the Montana border started on the other side of McKenzie county for example, than MT would be benefiting from this much more than ND. So ya I'd say geology has almost everything to do with it.

Rigs and rig counts aren't geology. You just said that oil price impacts drilling in Montana. Price is not geology. There is no argument that geology impacts drilling. Of course, it has a significant influence. However, again, geology is not 99% of the difference between drilling and production differences between ND and MT. Why can't you just admit that you grossly exaggerated when you stated that?

You already said that price is an important factor. Regulatory matters are also important. Oil and gas boards. Spacing until sizes and shapes. The Fort Peck Indian reservation has not been overly friendly to oil companies, and actually has driven off Harold Hamm/Continental twice. Taxes. Transportation. Proximity to existing production and sweet spots. This can be influenced by geology, but it also is influenced by where oil and sweet spots were first found. Proximity to existing water disposal and servicing companies have some impact. Infrastructure for housing and related services. Location of rigs. Yes, I know they can be moved, but it's cheaper to move them less distance than longer distances.

Ok I will rephrase what I said so we can quit this argument and I'm sick of arguing. I will now say geology is the main driving factor in the difference between MT and ND's oil production numbers. Yes I was exaggerating! but not much

I can accept that. I will also check with some of my oil friends/clients, to confirm.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

I will also check with some of my oily friends/clients, to confirm.

FIFY

 

[tnt]

Asd much as I am enjoying PRs and Badlands discourse which IS not only entertaining but educational (really) I have got to ask both if they think the difference in mineral rights and especially water right laws between NoDak and Montana (one being primarily held by the state has an effect. Especially with drilling and extraction practices (of course Geology has an effect there)

 

[BadlandsGrizFan]

Oh and PlayerRep, I also noticed your article was from 2012, I suggest using a more current source of information, specially when dealing with the oil industry. I would suggest trying to find something within the month next time you reference something with oil or gas being the topic, the industry tends to change drastically on a monthly basis....that is all

This is true, but on the other hand the industry in general can be very political based. Can't speak as to the Bakken, but one example is the state of New York did not move and allow fracking of wells when Marcellus drilling was booming. Now that boom is dead, as rig numbers in Pennsylvania have dropped drastically with many of those rigs being moved to Mid-Continent area, the Bakken, and some down in Texas/NM.

There is another factor at play to which is strictly financial. I've seen a few lease maps for the Bakken in Montana, and some of the companies that are major players there, have overextended themselves in places like PA (the Marcellus) and OH (the Utica - which has not played out as anticipated).

Hard to predict rig numbers though in 2025, as you yourself said its a changing dynamic, plus technology will also affect that. Rigs are going to go where the boom is. Who is to say that the Bakken is the best option in 2025? I see Jerry Brown is signing a bill allowing fracking in California, which will be challenged as it will get very political there.

However if drilling is allowed to happen in the Monterey Shale, and it starts to pay as expected, I can see many rigs migrating away from the Bakken (and thus Montana) and heading to California.The Monterey Shale is estimated at having the largest deep shale oil reserves in the world....and it will be a hot boom should drilling be allowed to happen.

So in the end, yes geology plays a major part but so does politics and so does investors. All together it makes for day-to-day changing environment.

I've been following the Monterey play as well, god I can only imagine the nightmares to follow introducing fracking to California. ND is a very easy state for oil companies to work in, California is going to be a fight with every aspect on a daily basis. Also in California the oil side of that shale will be huuuge, but as far as the "boom" aspect goes, not so much. They already have large communities developed in the area and infrastructure in place. The main region why it was such a "complete boom" in ND is because the region where it is taking place was so sparsely populated. ND is building entire cities and infrastructure projects out of plains and prairie. That is why its such an unbelievable boost to the housing and construction market.

California not so much.

 

[Rockmeister]

I haven't read the whole thread, but Engstrom's a dick! (Just going off of his past decisions) A politician! He has no class! He is an egomaniac who presents a facade, so he can move up to a bigger school, and make more money! He won't be here long! He'll end up in a "Good 'Ol Boy" school eventually and do absolutely nothing for that school either!!!!!

 

[ordigger]

Oh and PlayerRep, I also noticed your article was from 2012, I suggest using a more current source of information, specially when dealing with the oil industry. I would suggest trying to find something within the month next time you reference something with oil or gas being the topic, the industry tends to change drastically on a monthly basis....that is all

This is true, but on the other hand the industry in general can be very political based. Can't speak as to the Bakken, but one example is the state of New York did not move and allow fracking of wells when Marcellus drilling was booming. Now that boom is dead, as rig numbers in Pennsylvania have dropped drastically with many of those rigs being moved to Mid-Continent area, the Bakken, and some down in Texas/NM.

There is another factor at play to which is strictly financial. I've seen a few lease maps for the Bakken in Montana, and some of the companies that are major players there, have overextended themselves in places like PA (the Marcellus) and OH (the Utica - which has not played out as anticipated).

Hard to predict rig numbers though in 2025, as you yourself said its a changing dynamic, plus technology will also affect that. Rigs are going to go where the boom is. Who is to say that the Bakken is the best option in 2025? I see Jerry Brown is signing a bill allowing fracking in California, which will be challenged as it will get very political there.

However if drilling is allowed to happen in the Monterey Shale, and it starts to pay as expected, I can see many rigs migrating away from the Bakken (and thus Montana) and heading to California.The Monterey Shale is estimated at having the largest deep shale oil reserves in the world....and it will be a hot boom should drilling be allowed to happen.

So in the end, yes geology plays a major part but so does politics and so does investors. All together it makes for day-to-day changing environment.

I've been following the Monterey play as well, god I can only imagine the nightmares to follow introducing fracking to California. ND is a very easy state for oil companies to work in, California is going to be a fight with every aspect on a daily basis. Also in California the oil side of that shale will be huuuge, but as far as the "boom" aspect goes, not so much. They already have large communities developed in the area and infrastructure in place. The main region why it was such a "complete boom" in ND is because the region where it is taking place was so sparsely populated. ND is building entire cities and infrastructure projects out of plains and prairie. That is why its such an unbelievable boost to the housing and construction market.

California not so much.

ND is similar to OK. Farming communities that have been in decline for years, are starting to come back. Many of them are lined with motor homes, and trailers; similar to the area man camps up there. When I was in PA, it was probably closer to what CA would be; much of the old coal mining infrastructure was being used, including labor. The impact there could not be seen as much as down here.

If I recall doesn't the geology in North Dakota play a hand because the risks are lower to drill there vs Montana. Something to do with the anticlines/synclines thrusting up into North Dakota. The main structure might be in ND whereas in Montana its sort of the "outside looking in." Meaning on the edge instead if the bucket.

 

[BadlandsGrizFan]

Oh and PlayerRep, I also noticed your article was from 2012, I suggest using a more current source of information, specially when dealing with the oil industry. I would suggest trying to find something within the month next time you reference something with oil or gas being the topic, the industry tends to change drastically on a monthly basis....that is all

This is true, but on the other hand the industry in general can be very political based. Can't speak as to the Bakken, but one example is the state of New York did not move and allow fracking of wells when Marcellus drilling was booming. Now that boom is dead, as rig numbers in Pennsylvania have dropped drastically with many of those rigs being moved to Mid-Continent area, the Bakken, and some down in Texas/NM.

There is another factor at play to which is strictly financial. I've seen a few lease maps for the Bakken in Montana, and some of the companies that are major players there, have overextended themselves in places like PA (the Marcellus) and OH (the Utica - which has not played out as anticipated).

Hard to predict rig numbers though in 2025, as you yourself said its a changing dynamic, plus technology will also affect that. Rigs are going to go where the boom is. Who is to say that the Bakken is the best option in 2025? I see Jerry Brown is signing a bill allowing fracking in California, which will be challenged as it will get very political there.

However if drilling is allowed to happen in the Monterey Shale, and it starts to pay as expected, I can see many rigs migrating away from the Bakken (and thus Montana) and heading to California.The Monterey Shale is estimated at having the largest deep shale oil reserves in the world....and it will be a hot boom should drilling be allowed to happen.

So in the end, yes geology plays a major part but so does politics and so does investors. All together it makes for day-to-day changing environment.

I've been following the Monterey play as well, god I can only imagine the nightmares to follow introducing fracking to California. ND is a very easy state for oil companies to work in, California is going to be a fight with every aspect on a daily basis. Also in California the oil side of that shale will be huuuge, but as far as the "boom" aspect goes, not so much. They already have large communities developed in the area and infrastructure in place. The main region why it was such a "complete boom" in ND is because the region where it is taking place was so sparsely populated. ND is building entire cities and infrastructure projects out of plains and prairie. That is why its such an unbelievable boost to the housing and construction market.

California not so much.

ND is similar to OK. Farming communities that have been in decline for years, are starting to come back. Many of them are lined with motor homes, and trailers; similar to the area man camps up there. When I was in PA, it was probably closer to what CA would be; much of the old coal mining infrastructure was being used, including labor. The impact there could not be seen as much as down here.

If I recall doesn't the geology in North Dakota play a hand because the risks are lower to drill there vs Montana. Something to do with the anticlines/synclines thrusting up into North Dakota. The main structure might be in ND whereas in Montana its sort of the "outside looking in." Meaning on the edge instead if the bucket.