Remarks on the UT Proposal for the acquisition of Martin Methodist College

Louis J. Gross
Chancellor's Professor

Distributed to the UTK Faculty Senate on Dec 7, 2020

Senators,
       I will discuss only the issue of the Martin Methodist College (MMC) proposal
here - Beauvais has written an excellent exposition regarding concerns
on the Y-12 matter. I gave an address to the Board at their Oct 23 meeting
on the MMC matter. My comments were distributed to the Board and posted at
http://www.nimbios.org/~gross/Senate/LGrossBOTRemarksOct2020.pdf
I am chagrined that though it would be expected that any true due diligence
regarding the MMC issue would have addressed my three main points, the
report from Huron did not do so. This is despite President Boyd's comments
after my presentation that the due diligence would be released "well before
the next Board meeting" and that the due diligence would address the
points I raised. In fact the due diligence document from Huron was dated
Dec 1 and the Board meeting is Dec 9, so there clearly has not been time
for the various stakeholders in the UT System to analyze and discuss this.
     
    Regarding my three main points, the first concerned the lack of a deliberate
process to consider potential System expansion. The Huron report does not
mention anything about the process for considering how expansion might
occur nor alternatives options for the resources any expansion will require.
My second point concerns the fact that MMC is a much weaker institution
in terms of standard metrics than any other UT campus, a point emphasized
in the Huron report in Figure 16. The Huron report says that a combination
with MMC may improve "the offerings, services, and outcomes it delivers to
students", however it provides absolutely no estimate of the cost to do so.
My third point was that increasing the 6-year graduation rates (currently
36%) at MMC will take resources and we can estimate what this would require
from efforts at other UT campuses. The Huron report gives no estimate of
the costs and in fact states regarding student services including student
retention and graduation "Notably, the financial forecast included below
does not include additional investments in these areas." So how is this
"due diligence" if it doesn't include even a basic estimate of the costs of
bringing the MMC campus up to something closer to the standards of
other UT campuses on basic metrics by which campuses are judged?

   The Huron report includes a "wish list" of expansions at MMC to improve
outcomes, including adding a computer science program, enhancing the
current business programs and adding a pre-engineering program. There
is no estimate given for the cost of doing these and indeed each of
these areas would require hiring new faculty expertise. The report
implies that there is "ability to reallocate existing resources devoted to
student success and retention could enable this UT campus to raise the
full-time retention and six-year graduation rates that MMC currently
reports". However this statement is totally misleading since there are all of
1.5 positions in Financial Aid that they estimate as being able to be
reallocated and many, many aspects of student services that are below
par.

   As a business decision for the UT campus, there is simply no good
evidence presented that the resources needed to add MMC are able to be
covered in a manner that improves ""the offerings, services, and outcomes
it delivers to students" without taking resources away from other parts of
the UT System. Due diligence is a failure at this point and I encourage
the Board to vote against the proposed merger.

   Please feel free to send these remarks on to anyone, including Board
members. I am ccing Chancellor Plowman so she is aware of my
concerns.

Stay well,
         Lou