Remarks to SC Commission on Higher Education
Thank you.
Dr. Morrison suggested I begin my presentation today with an overview of Clemson University’s institutional role and historic mission. This is a good way to begin for two reasons.
First, because we have several Commissioners who are still relatively new on the board, and we welcome today our new Executive Director, Dr. Garry Walters.
Secondly, because this year we are celebrating the 200th birthday of our founder, Thomas Green Clemson, who was born in 1807.
We look back and remember the man whose remarkable life provides us – even today – with a perfect template for the truly educated person.
Mr. Clemson studied in the U.S. and abroad, in Paris. He was a scientist, a mining engineer, a farmer and a diplomat.
He also loved and participated in the arts. He painted, played the violin and wrote music. He was fluent in French and read several other languages.
As the chief U.S. diplomat to Belgium, Thomas Green Clemson negotiated the first trade agreement between our two nations in 1846. So he embraced the global economy more than 150 years ago.
He was an influential thinker behind the land grant college concept — which means: education, science and research in service to mankind. He was actively involved in the founding of Maryland Agriculture College, now the University of Maryland.
As he neared death in the 1880s, Mr. Clemson understood that scientific education was the key to economic progress and prosperity for South Carolina.
In the “high seminary of learning” he envisioned in his last will and testament, intellectual development was linked to practical knowledge and economic development.
It was the opposite of the elitist ideal of higher education for the privileged few: Establish a public college to teach the sons of farmers and factory workers the things they needed to know to make a better life for their families.
The South Carolina General Assembly, in its wisdom, accepted the terms and conditions of Mr. Clemson’s will and Clemson Agricultural College opened its doors in 1893.
This foundational document, and the vision of our founder, still defines Clemson University in many important ways.
First, we benefit from a unique form of governance.
Thomas Clemson named seven self-perpetuating “life trustees” in his will, and directed that the state legislature elect the other six. This public / private partnership is a source of great strength and continuity for our Board and our university. It has helped us attract some outstanding business leaders as Trustees, and they have helped us stay focused on our mission.
Second, our top priority is undergraduate education – the “high seminary of learning” – with an emphasis on science and technology within the framework of a broad, well-rounded education that includes languages and arts.
Third, as a Land Grant university, we also engage in research and public service in support of economic and community development, and we always have. When Mr. Clemson wrote about programs “intended to benefit agricultural and mechanical industries,” he essentially drafted South Carolina’s first economic development plan.
“I trust I do not exaggerate the importance of such an institution for developing the material resources of the State,” he said.
He did not exaggerate. Clemson University’s historical role cannot be overstated in developing and providing expert manpower to the state’s agriculture and forest industries, textiles, fibers, chemicals, construction, bricks and ceramics, packaging and many more. Through Extension, we took the expertise to the people, wherever they were.
We have a new mix of opportunities and industry clusters today. But the principle is exactly the same.
Statewide economic development is not “mission creep” for Clemson University.
Economic development is our mission, and has been for more than 100 years.
II. Strategic Planning
Dr. Morrison also asked us to brief you on Strategic Planning at our institutions, which I am glad to do.
In 2001, when Clemson University adopted the vision of becoming one of America’s Top 20 public universities, we began with an academic plan we call the Road Map.
Before beginning of our quest, the biggest obstacle we faced was self-doubt and self-concept. Clemson had been through a period of internal strife, inadequate funding and low morale in the 1990s.
We trailed a group of peer institutions on any number of measures we benchmarked, including library resources and class size.
We had bought into the “We're a small, poor state” mentality.
Many were not certain South Carolina even “deserved” or “could afford” excellence in higher education.
But a brave few began asking: Can we could “afford” mediocrity and the status quo in a rapidly changing, flat world? The answer is No.
Our plan has served Clemson well by focusing on priorities and measurable outcomes.
We made quality our goal, and budgeted to the plan instead of planning to a budget. We acknowledged early on that we could not be everything to everybody.
We established clear emphasis areas, which meant we were ready to leap on the opportunities offered by state incentive programs – whether scholarships, endowed chairs or infrastructure funds.
We backed up our rhetoric by actually putting money into the areas we had identified as priorities.
I don't need to tell the people in this room how difficult that is to do. You all understand it very well.
In its most recent report, the Review Panel of the Research Centers of Economic Excellence praised all three research universities for excellence in strategic planning. We “have clearly gone beyond rhetoric,” the review panel wrote.
At Clemson, we made the hard decisions to implement an enrollment management plan and invest in academic resources.
We revised general education requirements...adopted a 120-hour curriculum...and made very strategic investments in faculty, IT, an Academic Success Center, research and academic facilities, the libraries and the graduate school. As faculty began retiring in large numbers last year, we reallocated positions to our strategic emphasis areas.
As a result of having a plan and sticking to it, Clemson has improved on a number of objective quality measures.
We have:
- increased retention and graduation rates...
- Reduced the student-to-faculty ratio from 19 to 1 to 14 to one...
- increased the number of small classes and decreased the number of large, lecture classes...
- Notched record numbers of applicants and record levels of support for research and private giving.
Our students are highly engaged – student satisfaction scores exceed peer and national averages – and our research and economic development initiatives are delivering benefits to the state.
As these changes occurred, we have moved past N.C. State, Auburn and Virginia Tech in the US News rankings...and are now tied with Michigan State.
Since 1997, Clemson has climbed from Number 74 to Number 30 in the ranks of public research universities.
But it is important to understand cause and effect … to recognize that institutions are not successful because they are ranked. They are ranked because they are successful.
Some of our recent successes include:
- The installation of a campus chapter of Phi Beta Kappa, the nation’s oldest and most prestigious academic honor society.
- Study Abroad participation up 32 percent over the previous year.
- Clemson is the number one choice, by a wide margin, of graduates of the Governor’s School for Science and Math. 21 of the 33 “best and brightest” graduates who chose to stay in South Carolina chose Clemson.
- We opened our new European portal, the Clemson University Brussels Center, in June.
- The new Clemson Renaissance Center in Greenville will bring leadership and entrepreneurship education to the heart of that vibrant business district.
- A professor of Economics, Scott Baier, has just been appointed to the President’s Council of Economic Advisors in Washington.
- A Computational Center for Mobility Systems opened at CU-ICAR, powered by a high-performance computing system from Sun Microsystems.
- The Carroll Campbell Graduate Engineering Center is scheduled to open later this year. It is the academic component of CU-ICAR.Just yesterday, I had lunch with Teresa Earnhart as we announced a new partnership with DEI.
- We also announced yesterday that Clemson researchers have received a $1.6 million-dollar grant to develop a little bio-chip – about the size of a grain of rice –that could be injected into a injured soldier on the battlefield. It would immediately start sending to doctors reports on blood oxygen level and other crucial indicators.
I could go on and on.
The bottom line is this: Clemson is a dramatically stronger institution today than it was just seven years ago, at the turn of the 21st Century.
Our Top-20 goal has allowed us to harness the competitive spirit that is in Clemson’s blood – in our institutional DNA – and to channel that into the cause of academic improvement along with athletic success.
We are right now engaged in some soul searching and envisioning where Clemson will be 5 years, 10 years, 20 years from now.
We are at a pivotal point. As we continue to advance, we know the slope becomes steeper.
We know that we are already in uncharted territory.
If you were to make a list of Top-30 national public universities that are:
- land grant schools with no medical school or law school
- and fewer than 15,000 undergraduates,
there would be only one name on the list: Clemson University.
There are no other institutions that look like Clemson in the Top-30, much less the Top-20. We are a different kind of research university...but we like that.
Because we have chosen not to grow too so we can maintain strong student/faculty relationships ...because service is ingrained in everything we do...because we are committed to both the sciences and the humanities...because of our strong sense of place and community...Clemson is able to combine a “small college” approach to student teaching with a “big idea” approach to research and economic development.
We believe this gives us a distinct advantage to build on going forward.
The guiding principles of our planning to move from Top-30 to Top-20 are:
- build on our previous success – the Road Map and emphasis areas.
- expand our efforts to be a truly university-wide plan, encompassing academics, graduate education, research, public service, student services, athletics, facilities and IT infrastructure.
- focus on assessment and accountability.
The core elements of our “30 to 20 Plan” will be to:
- Continue the focus on targeted emphasis areas and build nationally competitive programs in specific areas. This will require strategic faculty hiring, facility and infrastructure investments, and fund-raising success.
- Develop top-20 graduate programs, again in specific priority areas.
- Provide a distinctive undergraduate experience, one that creates global citizens, critical thinkers and problem-solving entrepreneurs.
This is my vision of a Top-20 Clemson.
It is a university that has leveraged its distinctiveness to combine a highly engaged learning environment, a land-grant service orientation, and a science and technology-focused research backbone.
What happens when you bring these worlds together is creative thinking, innovation and ideas.
Because ideas are really our product. Ideas are what will really drive a knowledge-based economy for South Carolina. And what that means is that when we get to the Top 20, Clemson will still be Clemson.
We do not intend to leave our students behind, forget that we are a state-supported land-grant university, or neglect the will of Thomas Green Clemson.
Which brings me back full-circle to where I began my presentation today...as I now outline for you our needs and funding priorities for fiscal year 2008-2009.
We will ask the State once again to recognize the unique opportunities and special needs of the research universities. Within the research sector, Clemson has special public service and regulatory responsibilities related to our land grant mission.
Funding for our Public Service Activities – our PSA budget – is handled outside of CHE, so I will address only our E&G priorities today.
Next year we will seek Recurring Funding in the amount of $20 million for two broad categories:
Academic and Student Operations -- $ 9.8 million, and
Economic Development Needs -- $10.2 million.
Let me break that down further for you.
Under Academic and Student Operations, we request:
- $4.8 million for continued funding of the Academic Road Map –
As we discussed last year, this is largely an investment in basic, human intellectual infrastructure. The job of replacing a third of our faculty in a five-year time span has begun, plus we need to add 100 or more faculty members. Hiring nationally competitive faculty members requires additional investments in startup and operating support, graduate assistantships and other expenses. - $4 million for recurring Information Technology infrastructure needs –
Annual investments are needed in critical IT infrastructure that supports everything from classroom instruction to student services such as the libraries and registration to business and financial operations. This request is for the basic, yet sophisticated, computing needs of a high-tech university. - $1 million for increased Safety and Security -
This includes additional safety officers, new systems to improve security in campus buildings and to improve emergency communications with students and employees.
I'd like to speak to this priority briefly because I know it is an area uppermost in people’s minds after the Virginia Tech tragedy. Clemson has an excellent campus safety program, with well-trained and managed police officers and first responders. However, in reviewing all of our buildings, policies and procedures, we realized that some costly changes are needed. Some we are in the process of making; others we need additional funding to implement.
Under the category of Economic Development Needs, we seek recurring funds in the amount of:
- $4.2 million for our Economic Development Cluster Faculty Initiative
This request is in direct response to a suggestion in the Review Panel’s May 31 report to add up-front funding to the Endowed Chairs program.
I quote: “While the endowment funds awarded through the Research Centers of Economic Excellence Program represent a critical building block for knowledge-based economic growth the fact is, recruitment of world-class faculty to assume the Chairs is expensive and requires direct cost investment. We recommend that the state consider mechanisms to provide assistance with the direct costs needs in support of faculty recruited to endowed chairs.”
This up-front funding for junior faculty, graduate assistants and post-docs would jump-start a program cluster that could produce substantial income downstream as endowments mature and sponsored research picks up steam.
It would also help with another Review Panel recommendation – that we provide incentives for basic science faculty who are the foundation for applied research and the Endowed Chairs programs for which industry support is more commonly available.
- $1.5 million for South Carolina Light Rail
This is continued funding for Clemson’s portion this statewide computer network. We requested $1.5 million in recurring funding last year, and received that amount in one-time funds. Again, the Review Panel expressed strong support for advanced networking and shared computational infrastructure. We are preparing to launch Clemson’s connection to the National Lambda Rail soon, and South Carolina Light Rail would connect the other two research universities to this national network through our portal. - $1.5 million for CU-ICAR, the Clemson University International Center for Automotive Research
Last year’s request in this category was for academic support for the Carroll Campbell Graduate Engineering Center, graduate students and equipment. This year’s request is for recurring funding for the business development and operation of the CU-ICAR campus. - $3 million for the Clemson University Restoration Institute
This allocation will fund faculty engaged in academic and research programs at the research center in North Charleston, including operations at the Lasch Conservation Center. This state-of-the-art laboratory has been donated to Clemson. It will be a center for advanced materials research on large-scale artifacts after the completion of work on The Hunley submarine.
These seven items add up to a total request of $20 million in Recurring Funding.
In the Non-Recurring / Capital Funding category, we are again asking for:
- $25 million for a new Information Technology Center.
This facility would allow faculty, students and researchers to take advantage of new IT resources in a centralized campus location. - $30 million for an addition to Hunter Chemistry Laboratory
A proposed 90,000 square-foot research wing on the west side of Hunter Hall would support the chemistry department in realizing its potential as a nationally recognized research and teaching program. This is one of those basic programs that support and undergird applied research in many technology fields. - $10 million is still needed for Air Quality improvements and Deferred Maintenance
Heating, air and ventilation systems in several buildings need to be upgraded to provide adequate fresh air and exhaust systems. These funds would also address critical deferred maintenance projects that involve safety and utility infrastructure issues.
These three capital items add up to a total request of $65 million in Non-recurring Funding
In addition to the pressing funding needs that we have identified, Clemson University believes that significant regulatory relief is needed in the areas of facilities, information technology and public/private partnerships. This relief is also critical to the future success of the research universities.
Thank you for your patience this afternoon as I have talked about Clemson University, our history, mission, plans for the future and needs for state funding.
I'd like to close by emphasizing that Clemson also stands ready to help the state – and we think it is vitally important to do it – develop a statewide plan for higher education that recognizes the unique role of the research universities in both education and research and economic development.
I’ve mentioned the Centers of Excellence Review Panel several times already today. Two things that struck me in reading its report are the things that we are doing right in our state – the things that are praise-worthy and noteworthy.
One is the unusual degree of cooperation and commitment to meaningful planning among the three research universities.
The other is praise for the vision and courage of our state leaders who have created one of the nation’s best-conceived, best-managed programs of its kind.
"Investing in people on the leading edge of knowledge is by far the best economic development strategy a state can have," the reviewers write.
I could not agree more. Investing in people is not only the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do.
Thank you.