PurpleOut said:

---

It seems we just took questions from different people, groups, administrations, and just copied and pasted them into a doc to send to the four systems.

Doesn't seem like we proofread or put much thought or effort into it. Maybe it gets the same result and answers we need to make a decision, just seems rushed.

---

I can tell you from someone who saw the inside of the process that this is exactly what was done overall. There was no effort made after the different groups submitted questions to pare them down, merge them, or eliminate the embarrassing ones.

And it seems like the larger the constituency, the longer the list of questions.
Deans, 8 questions
Chairs, 9 questions
Faculty Senate, 64 questions
Staff Council, 21 questions (with some of them multiple part questions)
Student Govt, 19 questions
Alumni Association, 56 questions

The Chairs and Deans worked on their questions for a very long time, and it shows in the brevity. I think the Faculty Senate submitted a list of questions thinking that they were just suggestions, and they expected the administration to edit/combine questions for the final version (hence the repeated use of "possible category" in the Faculty Senate questions). It looks like the Alumni Association just submitted verbatim every question that got submitted by alumni, even when the questions were embarrassing or made no sense. I forget which system now, but one just put "Intentionally left blank" under some alumni association questions.

I chalk it all up to the compressed timeline.
"I have already made this paper too long, for which I must crave pardon, not having now time to make it shorter." -Benjamin Franklin, 1750

NacMan said:

---

PurpleOut said:

---

It seems we just took questions from different people, groups, administrations, and just copied and pasted them into a doc to send to the four systems.

Doesn't seem like we proofread or put much thought or effort into it. Maybe it gets the same result and answers we need to make a decision, just seems rushed.

---

I can tell you from someone who saw the inside of the process that this is exactly what was done overall. There was no effort made after the different groups submitted questions to pare them down, merge them, or eliminate the embarrassing ones.

And it seems like the larger the constituency, the longer the list of questions.
Deans, 8 questions
Chairs, 9 questions
Faculty Senate, 64 questions
Staff Council, 21 questions (with some of them multiple part questions)
Student Govt, 19 questions
Alumni Association, 56 questions

The Chairs and Deans worked on their questions for a very long time, and it shows in the brevity. I think the Faculty Senate submitted a list of questions thinking that they were just suggestions, and they expected the administration to edit/combine questions for the final version (hence the repeated use of "possible category" in the Faculty Senate questions). It looks like the Alumni Association just submitted verbatim every question that got submitted by alumni, even when the questions were embarrassing or made no sense. I forget which system now, but one just put "Intentionally left blank" under some alumni association questions.

I chalk it all up to the compressed timeline.
"I have already made this paper too long, for which I must crave pardon, not having now time to make it shorter." -Benjamin Franklin, 1750

---

Ya. It could have been pared down to 25-30 questions. Covered 99% of the important stuff.

that's good to know...as far as colors go, can we start a petition to do away with the black uniforms? I'm old school, I know, but I think we shouldn't be wearing anything but the purple and white...I hate alternate uniforms.

System or no system, I wish that some folks on the "stay independent" side weren't taking the misinformation approach to try to shoot this down.

TallTexan said:

---

System or no system, I wish that some folks on the "stay independent" side weren't taking the misinformation approach to try to shoot this down.

---

It's ridiculous, but they have zero influence over the decision.

Regents meeting is Sunday/Monday. Big week for SFA.

PurpleOut said:

---

Seems very clear, that UT is the overwhelming favorite from all groups.

---

Yes sir. It would be a tragedy if SFA chose A&M or Texas State system. My sense is that the faculty, would revolt. And with good reason. UT lays out in very clear terms what they plan to do and what some of the anticipated impact would be. Texas A&M lays out a plan for our Forestry Department, that's about it. Maybe a little help in the engineering front. But not to much engineering help.

BigJack85 said:

---

PurpleOut said:

---

Seems very clear, that UT is the overwhelming favorite from all groups.

---

Yes sir. It would be a tragedy if SFA chose A&M or Texas State system. My sense is that the faculty, would revolt. And with good reason. UT lays out in very clear terms what they plan to do and what some of the anticipated impact would be. Texas A&M lays out a plan for our Forestry Department, that's about it. Maybe a little help in the engineering front. But not to much engineering help.

---

We do not need A&M to improve ATCOFA.

SFAJack_76 said:

---

BigJack85 said:

---

PurpleOut said:

---

Seems very clear, that UT is the overwhelming favorite from all groups.

---

Yes sir. It would be a tragedy if SFA chose A&M or Texas State system. My sense is that the faculty, would revolt. And with good reason. UT lays out in very clear terms what they plan to do and what some of the anticipated impact would be. Texas A&M lays out a plan for our Forestry Department, that's about it. Maybe a little help in the engineering front. But not to much engineering help.

---

We do not need A&M to improve ATCOFA.

---

Amen!

Personally, I think being the only ag & forestry experts in the UT system will probably encourage them to invest in it heavily. We'll help them bring home the bacon there.

The Alumni Association response was very weak. Do they have no opinion beyond name, colors, and logos or is it laid out in the internal memorandum of understanding? Clearly, I'm missing something.

NacMan said:

---

SFA posted some additional information on its system website based on meetings held with each system in Dallas last week.

https://www.sfasu.edu/about-sfa/board-of-regents/university-system

I have not read all the material, but I did peek at the UT System replies, and on page 5-6 of the UT response, it looks like UT is pledging $80m in additional funding & support for SFA per year? With further amounts to be determined? Pinch me.

---

Correction: about $80m in additional funding for FY'23, including a large chunk of $65 million for capital improvements. Ongoing support looks to be about $12m per year.

NacMan said:

---

NacMan said:

---

SFA posted some additional information on its system website based on meetings held with each system in Dallas last week.

https://www.sfasu.edu/about-sfa/board-of-regents/university-system

I have not read all the material, but I did peek at the UT System replies, and on page 5-6 of the UT response, it looks like UT is pledging $80m in additional funding & support for SFA per year? With further amounts to be determined? Pinch me.

---

Correction: about $80m in additional funding for FY'23, including a large chunk of $65 million for capital improvements. Ongoing support looks to be about $12m per year.

---

Ya. That is closer to what I read. Still, very significant. I've said it before. If SFA walks away from this proposal (UT) OR picks another system, it would be questionable.

PurpleOut said:

---

I think Texas Tech hit a home run with this video. Very well done.

---

I watched it. They did. If PUF was spread appropriately….

Texas Tech and SFA were both founded in 1923 lots of parallels.

Man that video show's how bad they want it.

I think Texas Tech would be a reasonable choice. They sincerely do appear to want us, and there's some personal and historical parallels highlighted in that well made video. Tech was my favorite at the start of the process, it's just that the UT offer seems so much better in terms of financial support.

We'll see. The only thing I know for sure is that we have multiple good offers on the table, and it would be ridiculous if we walked away from them all and stayed independent. If SFA was capable of growing on her own, why haven't we over the last few decades? SFA had 12,687 students in 1992.

While that video definitely tugs at the heartstrings, the bottom line reason we're looking at joining any system is financial.

In my humble opinion, on each of the three most worrisome issues at SFA that I see: low/no enrollment growth, noncompetitive faculty and staff pay, and lacking student financial assistance, the UT proposal wins.

SFA Jack Fanatic said:

---

While that video definitely tugs at the heartstrings, the bottom line reason we're looking at joining any system is financial.

In my humble opinion, on each of the three most worrisome issues at SFA that I see: low/no enrollment growth, noncompetitive faculty and staff pay, and lacking student financial assistance, the UT proposal wins.

---

I believe you're correct in that assumption. We'd have largely the same funding we do now in both the A&M & Tech systems.

Also, I really liked UT highlighting that SFA having a different profile and programs than the system is a good thing for both the system & SFA.

Folks really want to sell the A&M is a great culture fit & sooo similar angle, and to me, homogeniety isn't always the best answer. We know rural education like the back of our hand. We don't need a system to teach us about that, we need it to help us be the best SFA that we can be. What are 10 other SFA clones going to teach us? They want to be us.