A FUTURE WE WOULD WELCOME
Return to Findings
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Commission Process
When Florida State University celebrated its fiftieth
anniversary of becoming a co-educational university, it seemed timely to
review our accomplishments of the past. At the same time, the anniversary
marked a time for reflection about where we were in the present, and where
we would like to go in the future. Over the summer of 1997, President D'Alemberte
sought advise from many university constituents about planning for the future.
A planning consultant, Dr. Carl Moore from the University of Arizona, spent
several days talking with members of the Florida State community and advised
the President on a planning process. In September, President D'Alemberte,
in his annual address at the General Faculty Meeting, announced to the university
community that a planning process would begin. The Commission on the Future,
made up of nineteen faculty representing many programs on campus, was appointed.
At the first organizational meeting, the Commission agreed to focus on goals
for the next decade. In November, Dr. Frank Rhodes, President Emeritus of
Cornell University, addressed the commission on his impressions of Florida
State University based on a three day visit to the campus. Dr. Rhodes talk is found later in this
report.
A large selection of readings in higher education were provided to the Commissioners
as background material about general trends and issues in higher education
in America. These materials ranged from a recent issue of Daedelis
that was devoted to higher education issues, to reports from the private
sector on their view of the problems and needs in higher education.
The Commission on the Future met weekly from January through April 1998 to hear from members of the academic community of their vision of FSU's future. Speakers ranged from faculty and administrators to alumni and former state policy makers. To further extend campus input, all of the meetings of the Commission were open to the campus and local community. They were also televised and aired weekly on Public Education Channel 47. The televised record is housed in the Office of the President and of the Vice President for University Relations. The entirety of these talks along with written input from many areas of the campus form the body of this report. To obtain the written statements, the Commission sent letters to about 1200 members of the campus community including all faculty and heads of support offices. In addition, the Commission held two dinner meetings. The Chair of the Board of Regents, Steven Uhlfelder, shared his thoughts about the future of higher education in general and of FSU specifically at the first dinner meeting. The second dinner meeting was attended by six students representing undergraduate and graduate education, athletics, and student government. This open discussion allowed students to share their impressions about FSU and their educational experience, and provided a rich forum for two way dialogue with the faculty. The talks, dinner discussions, and written statements provide the basis for the suggestions and recommendations of the Commission.
At the end of the public hearings period the Commissioners used two methods
to examine the large amount of information that had been provided. Initially,
a list of some 200 recommendation items were culled from the presentations
to the Commission. The Department of Information and Management Sciences
Computing Laboratory under the direction of Professor Joey George, provided
the resources, programming and session leadership for the Commission. The
recommendations were entered into a Delphi decision process software program
for use in sorting and ranking the items. Items were ranked and rated as
to their importance in improving the quality of the University over the
next ten years, and then ranked and rated to identify those that could reasonably
be initiated in the next twelve months. The results provided some 55 items
of importance to the university, and some 20 items that could begin in the
next twelve months. This information guided the thinking of the Commission
in the discussion phase that followed. In the discussion phase, members
discussed the ordering of recommendations and the issues surrounding some
of the recommendations where clear consensus did not exist. The results
of this process make up this Executive Summary.
A unique feature of this process at FSU was the appointment of an External
Committee on the Future that is made up of 32 alumni, friends, policy makers,
three faculty members, and others. This group was appointed in January 1998
by President D'Alemberte to provide an outsiders' view of FSU's future.
The External Committee organized its work into four committees that focused
on the qualifications desired in FSU graduates who would be the employees
of the twenty-first century, graduate and professional education, partnerships
in research and education, and a review of the compact with the State of
Florida and its higher education institutions. Throughout the process there
was close communication between the two groups with the Chair of the internal
Commission meeting with the external group, and the Chair of the External
Group, Mr. Thomas Petway III, attending some of the sessions of the internal
group and giving a formal report from the external group at the last session
of the internal Commission. A copy of his presentation is in the body of this report. A full report of the external
group will be submitted in Fall 1998.
Return to Findings