Please Read: Important Auburn Report

[DCWarEagle 0]

Fellow Auburn People, below is a link to the Fisher Report, a comprehensive review of Auburn University commissioned by the Board of Trustees.

http://web6.duc.auburn.edu/administration/...sher_report.pdf

The Report is really long, but think about all the time we spend reading about football and invest some time in it. This report was done by a group of non-Auburn people, and it seems pretty objective.

The report notes many of the wonderful things about Auburn, including our "exceedingly comprehensive" academic programs, and it states that the review team has "never encountered such deep feelings for a university." But the focus of the report is to identify problems facing Auburn and give recomendations on how to solve those problems. Some of the major problems discussed are Auburn's poor reputation with other colleges, governance issues (particularly regarding the Board of Trustees), the search for a new president, low standardized test scores by Auburn seniors (LSAT, MCAT, GMAT, GRE), and the low rate of alumni giving (we are 102, uat is 22)

I highly encourage all of you to read this report and think about what each of us can do to make Auburn a better place.

I'll get off my soap box now.

War Eagle

[WaDE'05 8]

I agree, I have read the majority of the report. It is double spaced and has about 20 pages worth of notes and appendices, so all in all it's really only about 55-60 pages of reading. You can get the gist of it by reading about 35 or so pages of it. It is a very honest report and addresses all of the problems we tend to discuss around here (i.e. NCAA sanctions, Student Athlete Requirements, The BOT, Lowder, Richardson, Jacobs, etc...). They panel speaks very highly of the Auburn students and faculty, and is rather critical of the governance (shocking, I know). It really all boils down to "Auburn is a slightly above average school all around, but with some improvements in the way things are run, AU is far beyond capable of being one of the very best public universities in the nation."

If you love Auburn, and have about 20 to 30 minutes to spare, I assure you it is more than worth your time. I truly hope the PTB, take the suggestions in this report into much consideration. It could really help Auburn bridge the gap between good and excellent.

[bigsixfive 327]

"Auburn is a slightly above average school all around, but with some improvements in the way things are run, AU is far beyond capable of being one of the very best public universities in the nation."

216892[/snapback]

I've been saying this for years. All the things are in the right places, we just can't seem to get over the hump. From being slighted by various sources to the administration shooting us in the foot, its going to take an effort all around - students, alumni, faculty, and the administration. One thing this university is horrible at is promotion. If the administration could fix that, I think it would go a long way.

[aucanucktiger 1,794]

"One thing this university is horrible at is promotion."

Amen to that, our public relations focus is dreadful. (Even the 'necks learned something about public relations AFTER Wallace stood in their doorway).

Look @ these overall reports w/ a critical eye. Look @ what this one is reviewing, a major university consisting of 100+ different sub-topics of study. How meaningless a measuring stick is a conclusion like "the university as a whole is slightly better than average?" If you study veterinary medicine at AU you're getting a degree from one of the premier institutes of learning in that field in the country. If you study in one of the academic areas AU is NOT known for, you're degree (and probably your education from AU in that field) is less than average. Except in the administrative sense, what good does it do to address the university as a whole? That mode of measurement made sense 100 years ago when everybody studied latin, chemistry, math, english and a dozen other undergrad subjects...regardless of your chosen field after graduation. At best, the Fisher Report mode of evaluation is misleadingly simplistic at best and it's intellectually dishonest at worst. It may be moderate ("reasonable") read, but it's inherently flawed. Another example: LSU has some HORRIBLY rated areas of academic study, but it has one of the best petroleum engineering schools in the world. So whatever a "Fisher Report" rates LSU as a whole is supposed to reflect accurately on an individual student's degree? And isn't the individual degree the IMPORTANT measurement of a colleges?

[WaDE'05 8]

"One thing this university is horrible at is promotion."

Amen to that, our public relations focus is dreadful. (Even the 'necks learned something about public relations AFTER Wallace stood in their doorway).

Look @ these overall reports w/ a critical eye. Look @ what this one is reviewing, a major university consisting of 100+ different sub-topics of study. How meaningless a measuring stick is a conclusion like "the university as a whole is slightly better than average?" If you study veterinary medicine at AU you're getting a degree from one of the premier institutes of learning in that field in the country. If you study in one of the academic areas AU is NOT known for, you're degree (and probably your education from AU in that field) is less than average. Except in the administrative sense, what good does it do to address the university as a whole? That mode of measurement made sense 100 years ago when everybody studied latin, chemistry, math, english and a dozen other undergrad subjects...regardless of your chosen field after graduation. At best, the Fisher Report mode of evaluation is misleadingly simplistic at best and it's intellectually dishonest at worst. It may be moderate ("reasonable") read, but it's inherently flawed. Another example: LSU has some HORRIBLY rated areas of academic study, but it has one of the best petroleum engineering schools in the world. So whatever a "Fisher Report" rates LSU as a whole is supposed to reflect accurately on an individual student's degree? And isn't the individual degree the IMPORTANT measurement of a colleges?

216913[/snapback]

I apologize, that was my very very abbreviated version of the gist of the report. The report in it's entirety breaks down a lot of the major areas of study and research at AU, and reports on them individually as well. I was just trying to give everyone on the board who doesn't really have the time to read all of it a nutshell idea of what it said. I thought the Fisher report was pretty accurate when compared to my last five years of experience on campus, and I believe that the suggestions they reccomended would really help out the university as a whole. give it a once over before you commit it to the flames. Once again, sorry for the misleading generalization.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

MOds.......I can see this thread leading to another 'everything is screwed up at Auburn" dialog. So in the spirit of clebrating a great day in our FB recruiting, can we move it to a more appropriate forum?

[WaDE'05 8]

MOds.......I can see this thread leading to another 'everything is screwed up at Auburn" dialog. So in the spirit of clebrating a great day in our FB recruiting, can we move it to a more appropriate forum?

216921[/snapback]

probably 1/4 to 1/3 of the report has to do with athletics (football for the most part) at AU. I would love to see this thread take that direction rather than be moved to some obscure part of the site that only a minority keep up with. I really like what the report had to say as far as our acceptance of partial qualifiers. Unlike most things you hear from academic reports, the fisher report didn't suggest totally getting rid of the partial qualifier acceptance system, but rather they gave a few suggestions on making sure these kids are helped out, so they can catch up to the rest of their class and not just play football for three or four years, not graduate and end up working at the alabama state docks.

Here's a cut and paste of the main part about football and intercolligiate athletics, it's a little long, but here goes.....

INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS

Intercollegiate athletics occupy an almost larger than life role at Auburn University. When

87,451 Tiger fans fill every available seat in Jordan-Hare Stadium for a home football game, a

palpable, though in some ways almost indefinable, spirit of energy and group unity captures Auburn

and its many constituencies. Time-honored shouts of “War Eagle!” readily identify tens of

thousands of Auburn fans world-wide, but this is not always accompanied by understanding by

outsiders. There are sociologies attached to Tiger athletics and, for that matter, to SEC athletics, that

often are difficult for outsiders to comprehend. Auburn and the SEC evoke unity of purpose, pride,

and magnificent entertainment, along with generous amounts of tribalism and almost religious

attachments to being a fan. All in all, Auburn athletics and the SEC, are distinctive, perhaps unique,

in the context of American higher education.

A member of the SEC, Auburn played its first football game in 1892. Things have changed

since then. The university budgeted more than $35 million during this fiscal year for intercollegiate

athletics and related support activities such as the marching band and academic support. Football

accounted for $6.34 million of this total, with men's basketball ($2.40 million) and men's and

women's basketball ($1.55 million) next highest among the sports. Commendably, Auburn

budgeted $1.17 million for academic support for athletes and, inter alia, operates a large and wellappointed

student athlete academic development center.

The sheer financial size of Auburn’s intercollegiate athletics operations attracts attention.

Witness the recent community interest in the football coach’s seven-year contract, which was

widely reported to be worth more than $2.0 million annually. Concern often seemed to be more

about how the decision was made rather than about the size of the financial package.

Auburn's expenditures for intercollegiate athletics may seem high, and they are in a national

context, but actually they are substantially below those of several of its SEC competitors, notably

Florida, Florida State, Georgia and Tennessee. Nevertheless, Auburn has been more than

competitive in the SEC and nationally and has numerous conference championship and several

national championships to show for it. Auburn's comparatively penurious approach to

intercollegiate athletic expenditures (at least by SEC standards) is small comfort to those who object

to such expenditures as a matter of principle, but they are best considered within an SEC

59

perspective. What is common and acceptable in the SEC is not necessarily the order of the day in

the Atlantic Ten or Big Sky Conferences.

Auburn sponsors eleven women’s sports and nine men’s sports. Yet, whether Auburn

satisfies the dictates of Title IX with respect to gender equity is not clear to some outside observers.

The university argues that it satisfies acceptable interpretations of Title IX and neither any court,

nor the NCAA, has ruled differently.

(79) We recommend, nevertheless, that the new President re-examine the precise ways

in which Auburn currently satisfies Title IX requirements.

There are many very positive things to be said about intercollegiate athletics at Auburn

University. The institution's programs have run at least small financial surpluses for approximately

a decade and on occasion they funnel some dollars to the academic side of the university's house.

These are accomplishments duplicated by few institutions in Division I-A athletics, the majority of

which struggle to keep their heads above the financial waves. If there is a danger here, it is in the

wholesale dependence of the entire intercollegiate program on the financial success of Tiger

football teams. Auburn football feeds and subsidizes nearly all of the other sports.

Graduation rates for Auburn's athletes have improved substantially over the years and the

NCAA reports indicate that it is at or above national averages in many sports; this is true for

African-American athletes as well. Of 55 NCAA Division I football teams that competed in postseason

bowls this year, only seven had NCAA Academic Progress Rates higher than Auburn,

though 32 had football team graduation rates that exceeded Auburn. The Academic Progress Rates

takes into account the number of players on a team and the extent to which they stay in college, stay

eligible and graduate.

(80) Even so, the graduation rate for student athletes is still too low. Further, the

graduation rate for “special admissions” student-athletes (those who do not qualify for

regular admissions) is less than one-half of that for the overall student body. “These

individuals are the key to our football and basketball success,” commented an insider. It is clear

that there must be room for progress here. We recommend that the Athletic Director focus

on these individuals, determine how and why they are failing, and see what can be done to

60

improve their academic performances. Otherwise, one might easily conclude that Auburn

admits these individuals extracts their athletic performances, and then tosses them aside.

(81) Among other considerations, we recommend that Auburn mandate individualized

tutoring programs for its special admission student-athletes. Special admission students come

to Auburn with academic weaknesses, but also with high expectations for athletic

performance (otherwise they would not have been admitted, given their academic credentials).

A specifically tailored support tutoring and academic support program should be developed

for each special admission student that he/she should be required to follow. Each special

admissions student should be informed even during recruiting that this will be expected of

them. In our view, while some prospective student-athletes may not be thrilled by this

prospect, their parents or guardians (and their high school principals and coaches) will view

this requirement favorably. Further, each year an outside evaluation should be conducted to

learn what works and what doesn’t. Additionally, research should be conducted to help

Auburn to determine which special admission student-athletes have the best chance of being

successful and others who, for motivational and other reasons, simply are quite unlikely to

make it. If Auburn cannot improve its graduation rate for these students, then it should

reduce their numbers.

(82) We recommend that the contracts of Auburn’s coaches always include provisions

dealing with both student academic achievement and rules compliance. Coach’s contracts

and annual evaluations usually reward coaches for successful seasons; they also should

include rewards related to student progress and running a clean program.

(83) Presently, the Athletics Department conducts on line interviews of senior athletes.

We suggest that the Standing University Senate Committee be involved and that face-to-face

exit interviews occur for each graduating senior athlete and each athlete who leaves before

his/her eligibility is used up. The purpose of the interviews would be to learn of problems,

compliance or otherwise, that need to be addressed. This information should be reported to

the President and the Athletic Director in a private meeting.

The overall student-athlete support system is impressive. The Student Athlete Support

Services program assigns student athletes to one of its student counselors who stays with the student

61

until he/she graduates or leaves the university. Tutorial assistance, course registration and overall

academic management are a part of this service. Auburn also provides personal and professional

development through its NCAA sponsored, nationally recognized CHAMPS/ Life Skills program;

the new, outstanding Academic Center for Athletes facilities make this task easier. As one faculty

interviewee said, “In recent years they have been serious about working with us when students need

help. Yet, I have never been approached about a grade change.” When asked, others in the group

echoed the sentiment about grade changes.

In contrast to circumstances at some other institutions, Auburn's athletes have been

integrated into the university's academic life and Intercollegiate Athletics financially supports tutors

who assist both athletes and other students. A new Athletic Director (Mr. Jay Jacobs) has

deliberately undertaken to improve the image of Intercollegiate Athletics and he has made

impressive progress in that regard. A number of interviewees commented about the managerial

improvements since the new Director of Athletics was appointed. One interviewee commented on

how hard the department works to stay clear of NCAA violations. Another said, “The new Director

is young, but sincere and hard working; people want him to be successful and they trust him.”

Another described the new environment as “family like” saying that, “We can get emotional about

issues, but in the end we will do what is right for the program and Auburn.”

The university passed through its most recent NCAA certification process rather well (and

has done the same with respect to SEC reviews) and thereby garnered a set of deserved

commendations for the directions it has taken. It is notable that Auburn now employs five

individuals in the compliance section of its intercollegiate athletic administration and advertises in

its materials that compliance is of “the utmost importance.” An individual with coaching

experience observed that, “I have been in a number of coaching positions, and this is the tightest

(most rigorous) program I have seen. It is fair but constraining.”

These efforts deserve applause and support. They have required much effort and

commitment and represent a desirable “New Auburn.”

(84) We recommend that the new President demonstrate his/her early and vocal

support for the “New Auburn” as it applies to intercollegiate athletics; the athletic director

should continue as a direct report. Without undercutting the athletic director, the President

62

should visit with coaches and athletic squads to spread the good word and go out and talk

with alumni and supporters to underline the university's academic values and institutional

commitments.

That said, this perception still exists on-campus and throughout the nation that

intercollegiate athletics (and especially) football are “the tail that wags the dog” at Auburn. The

scandals, missteps and probations that we mentioned in our introductory section have not been

forgotten and Auburn still finds itself on NCAA probation. The institution apparently holds an

unenviable national record in that regard. Over and over again, concerned faculty told us that

intercollegiate athletics were “wildly overemphasized.” Commented the president of another

institution, “Traditionally, there simply has been little sense of proportion to athletics at Auburn.”

There remains an inability on occasions for Auburn personnel to confront intercollegiate

athletic issues in an open and collegial fashion without things becoming personal and sometimes

ugly. As one interviewee put it, “We have no well-established, respected ways of getting to “yes.”

Instead, ‘end arounds’ those who are in authority become the rule rather than the exception.”

Another provided a different interpretation: “If the people at the top would lead—follow the rules--

most things could get worked out and there would be no need for ‘ end arounds.’ ”

What all concerned with Auburn's welfare need to understand is that these perceptions often

are shared nationally. Thus, when individuals who are not aware of Auburn's many academic and

programmatic achievements think of the university, it often is in terms of its intercollegiate athletic

programs, and in more than a few cases, that perception is not helpful. Yes, Auburn has a brand, and

the closer to home one is, the more positive that brand tends to be. But, the world is larger than

Alabama and the southeast. Hence, on occasion, Auburn’s brand is not helpful to the university and

may harm its constituents in a variety of employment and academic program ranking situations.

Some individuals know and judge Auburn only on the basis of what they read about its

intercollegiate athletic teams and their fans. Alas, over the past few decades, that publicity has been

a mixed bag.

In December 2003, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools placed Auburn on

probation for failure to comply with several of its criteria for accreditation. Two of these criteria

relate to intercollegiate athletics: Rule 5.52 and Rule 5.53. Rule 5.52 pertains to oversight of

63

athletics. The Association cited Auburn for “….failing to demonstrate the existence and

implementation of sufficient safeguards to ensure that ultimate control over the athletics program

rests with the chief executive officer” (Board micromanagement and interference by alumni

groups). Rule 5.53 deals with financial control of the athletics program. Here the Association

cited Auburn for having insufficient control over the Athletic funds held in the Athletic Foundation.

We are pleased to report that it appears that the university has made considerable progress in

addressing these two issues since December 2003. Decisive action by the Interim President and the

Board of Trustees resulted in a new Board policy on Intercollegiate Athletics. Further, the new

Board statement requires that all funds received by affiliated organizations spent on athletics be

controlled and overseen by the President. But, negative impressions linger much longer than

probations.

(85) Auburn should maintain transparency whenever possible with respect to all

intercollegiate athletic programs. There will always be a certain amount of mystery

surrounding any high profile athletics program, but the more transparency about its

operations the better. Campus and community ignorance about the program is partly the

result of keeping too much information under wraps. Public release of budget information

would be helpful. For example, how many people know the burden placed on football to help

fund the overall program? Or, how many know that a small minority of I-A intercollegiate

athletic programs actually operate in the black? The President’s annual report and this report

for starters will constitute a move in the right direction.

It is only fair to note that intercollegiate athletics has not been the only malefactor in terms

of generating negative media coverage. Publicity relating to Auburn's Board of Trustees, the

musical chairs instability among the university's top administrators, legal suits against SACS,

battles with the AAUP, and so forth, also have injured the institution, even when Auburn may have

had elements of virtue on its side. “These guys are very good at shooting themselves in their foot,”

is the sardonic observation of an official in a disciplinary accrediting agency.

It is almost axiomatic that one “should never argue with anyone who buys their ink by the

barrel” (that is, one is ill-advised to argue extensively with newspapers). It is analogously unwise

to be perceived continually as an adversary of accrediting agencies, the NCAA, the AAUP, and

64

similar well-established regional and national organizations. Simply put, it is very difficult to win

battles of perception in such circumstances. It is one thing to be brave, but quite another to be

judicious.

(86) To be sure, some national perceptions of Auburn are based upon out-of-date

stereotypes and represent unfortunate regional ignorance. Many institutions in the Old South

battle such perceptual odds. Still, if Auburn is to assume its justified place in the higher

education sun, it must turn over a new leaf and demonstrate to any and all that intercollegiate

athletics are under control (and here we unmistakably mean under the control of the

President of the university), that Auburn unmistakably is an institution that will follow the

rules, and that it will not tolerate those who are rule breakers. (This includes Boosters as well

as staff.) Board members must stay completely out of the management of intercollegiate

athletics. Auburn University is too fine an institution with too great a potential to allow any

single area of the institution, or any single group of individuals, to deter its progress.

(87) We recommend that the President and the Athletic Director (with the visible

support of the Board) announce a zero tolerance policy for serious NCAA violations.

Secondary violations always are likely to occur and an effective compliance program will deal

with them quickly by informing the NCAA of action taken. Major violations, however,

require a much heavier hand. Auburn must clearly state to coaches and other intercollegiate

athletics officials that they will be held accountable for major violations in their sport and that

they will be punished, including the possibility of termination, if substantive violations occur.

We recommend their contracts contain such language.

(88) Further, we recommend that the university clearly enunciate this policy to its fans

and boosters and that it make a conscientious attempt to inform major fan and booster groups

of the institution’s stance, the nature of NCAA rules, and how Auburn intends to deal with

violations. Finally, in this regard, we recommend that the university sever its relationship

with any fan or booster organization that is found to encourage or abet the violation either

Auburn or NCAA rules concerning intercollegiate athletics.

(89) We recommend that the new President participate in the NCAA outreach

program for new presidents and chancellors. This program provides new presidents with the

65

opportunity to learn about NCAA policies and issues from key NCAA staff and retired

Division I-A presidents. It is an excellent way for a new CEO to obtain independent views and

to assemble contacts that can be invaluable when objective, external advice is needed.

(90) Finally, we recommend that each Board member sign a statement, not unlike its

conflict of interest statement, which indicates that the Board member in question understands

the university’s athletics policies and intends to abide by them. It is absolutely essential that

all Board members abide by their own policies (as well as those of the SEC and the NCAA)

and that they publicly support the President in administering and implementing those

policies.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

I started reading through it, will read some more later. It uses the words opinion alot.

Some of it doesn't have good research, or I guess is just to general. Like the part about the internet class. Anyone that has taken English at Auburn knows you do that crazy library tour where they teach you to use the search engines like 4 times. Then I have several classes that use the internet as part of the class, and the instructors are always willing to help you. Same with the excel programs and word programs.

Anyone taken the intro to computers class, CSE or whatever its called now? One of those classes where your going to probably end up with someone that does not speak very good english and your gonna end up teaching yourself. Mean I can do that at home.

It reads like, everyone doesn't have to take a interent class so they will never learn to use the internet.

[DCWarEagle 0]

My reason for posting the report was certainly NOT to start a "name everything that sucks about Auburn" thread. It was to make people on this message board aware of the report and hopefully some of them will read it (at the very least read the intro/overview which is only about 16 pages long). I think the report is good b/c it does not just discuss problems with Auburn, it gives specific recommendations with how to improve problem areas.

After people read it, I hope is that they think about what it says, and communicate their thoughts to the Auburn administration, as well as taking personal action to help the University. As I noted in my first post, Auburn is 102nd in the percentage of alumni who give back annually (tied with University of Texas Southwest Medical Center and the Stout campus of U of Wisconsin). Only 10.9 percent of alumni give. The report notes how surprising this low giving rate is compared with the love that everyone says they have for Auburn. This is something we can all change. We don't have to make large gifts, even 10 bucks qualifies as a gift.

The report is certainly not infallable (in the portion that WaDE'05 pasted below they refer to FSU as being a member of the SEC) and many of the recommendations are opinions, some of which I disagree with (such as the suggestion to really ramp up evening classes and distance learning-I personally feel this would dilute the Auburn brand and possibly even be harmful to the general unity of students with regard to their college experience...Auburn is a place where you go and spend four (or more) wonderful years, it is NOT a suitcase school or a just a name brand that you log onto on the Internet to fulfill educational requirements).

The report does talk about football (and athletics in general) and I would like to see the thread stay here in the main forum, b/c I think a lot more people will read it.

Thanks for having a space where discussions like this can take place.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

I wonder how much of the donation by alumni is affected by the board of trustees. I know my mother said that if they fired Tuberville because of a 8 win season or didn't make a change in certain areas that she would stop sending money. Those areas were Housel and Pres.

Would changes in those areas at the top influence more people to donate. I also was suprised by the amount of donations coming from alumni.

I also feel that the state has handicaped Auburn somewhat also, by not allowing things such as the lottery or other things of that nature that schools like UGA and UF benefit from. They have handicapped us with our board of trustees also because it almost impossible to get them out.

I'm like you DC some of the opinions and suggestions I don't like. Such as the internet class, cause I think most know how to use it coming out of HS and those that don't learn in class.

[DCWarEagle 0]

I wonder how much of the donation by alumni is affected by the board of trustees.  I know my mother said that if they fired Tuberville because of a 8 win season or didn't make a change in certain areas that she would stop sending money.  Those areas were Housel and Pres.

Would changes in those areas at the top influence more people to donate.  I also was suprised by the amount of donations coming from alumni.

I also feel that the state has handicaped Auburn somewhat also, by not allowing things such as the lottery or other things of that nature that schools like UGA and UF benefit from.  They have handicapped us with our board of trustees also because it almost impossible to get them out.

I'm like you DC some of the opinions and suggestions I don't like.  Such as the internet class, cause I think most know how to use it coming out of HS and those that don't learn in class.

217134[/snapback]

Texan, I think you are right that some people don't donate b/c of objections they have to the BOT or other governance issues, and the Report explicitly recognizes this: "Yes, there are some fairly plausible explanations for the low rate which include questionable Board practices, administrative and faculty leadership, bad publicity and administrative organization." P. 66.

In fact for a year or two after a particularly big flair-up on the BOT, I did the same thing, but then I thought "okay, so I am objecting to something that is bad for Auburn, and the way I do it is by not giving any money, which is also bad for Auburn, so I'm not helping the situation at all." I decided that it would be more helpful to contribute money and along with that contribution include a letter expressing my opinion about some of the events.

Also, about the computer/Internet class, what they reccomend is a class OR for students to demonstrate that they are already proficient in that area. So there woudl be a test. If you pass the test, you don't have to take the class:

"we recommend that Auburn require every candidate for a baccalaureate degree to complete a course that guarantees computer/Internet literacy, or demonstrate such by means of a widely administered test on campus. Ideally, students should demonstrate this mastery within their first 30 semester hours. We believe that a significant majority of Auburn students will arrive at the institution already in possession of these skills and thus this requirement will not affect them." P.19

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

I wonder how much of the donation by alumni is affected by the board of trustees.  I know my mother said that if they fired Tuberville because of a 8 win season or didn't make a change in certain areas that she would stop sending money.  Those areas were Housel and Pres.

Would changes in those areas at the top influence more people to donate.  I also was suprised by the amount of donations coming from alumni.

I also feel that the state has handicaped Auburn somewhat also, by not allowing things such as the lottery or other things of that nature that schools like UGA and UF benefit from.  They have handicapped us with our board of trustees also because it almost impossible to get them out.

I'm like you DC some of the opinions and suggestions I don't like.  Such as the internet class, cause I think most know how to use it coming out of HS and those that don't learn in class.

217134[/snapback]

Texan, I think you are right that some people don't donate b/c of objections they have to the BOT or other governance issues, and the Report explicitly recognizes this: "Yes, there are some fairly plausible explanations for the low rate which include questionable Board practices, administrative and faculty leadership, bad publicity and administrative organization." P. 66.

In fact for a year or two after a particularly big flair-up on the BOT, I did the same thing, but then I thought "okay, so I am objecting to something that is bad for Auburn, and the way I do it is by not giving any money, which is also bad for Auburn, so I'm not helping the situation at all." I decided that it would be more helpful to contribute money and along with that contribution include a letter expressing my opinion about some of the events.

Also, about the computer/Internet class, what they reccomend is a class OR for students to demonstrate that they are already proficient in that area. So there woudl be a test. If you pass the test, you don't have to take the class:

"we recommend that Auburn require every candidate for a baccalaureate degree to complete a course that guarantees computer/Internet literacy, or demonstrate such by means of a widely administered test on campus. Ideally, students should demonstrate this mastery within their first 30 semester hours. We believe that a significant majority of Auburn students will arrive at the institution already in possession of these skills and thus this requirement will not affect them." P.19

217161[/snapback]

Ah, I read that last night at 2am on the internet so missed the part about the ability to demonstrate.

[WaDE'05 8]

I think that of all the suggestions that the fisher report committee made, I'd probably agree with about 75% of them. A dynamic president that would step in and start progressing to some legitimate goals, and start trying to stop some of the good ole boy politics that Auburn seems to find itself accused of would be a great start, especially considering that we haven't had a real president at the university in about 5 or 6 years. Really liked what they had to say about the students and faculty though, I tell people that all the time when they are thinking about soming to Auburn. I say that Auburn is a pretty nice town as far as towns go, and a pretty good school as far as public universities go, but the people here are really what make it outstanding. You won't meet a community of better folks in all the world. I know there are idiots and jerks everywhere, but I know that if there were some way to gauge it statistically, Auburn would have more quality people per capita than any city in the world. I say this with humility and from experience and I honestly don't believe myself to be too naive when coming ot this conclusion. I really widh the report would have said more about the architecture dept. though, I'm not in that school, but they are a model program and do so much for the community. Just wish those guys would have taken a trip out to the rural studio and watched Auburn men and women learn their trade while providing relief for a very impoverished area.

[Scottie4AU 0]

I have read the entire report...and there are plenty of points that will surely start discussion/debate.

The overwhelming point the I came across is best captured by considering the following question:

What is the person who embodies the spirits of Abraham Lincoln, George Washington Carver, George Patton, and St. Peter?

Answer: unqualifed to be president of AU according the Fisher Report!

"Good Luck with ALLLLL that!"--Jerry Seinfeld