An ocean liner would be easier to turn than the behemoth higher-education system MnSCU (pronounced "minn-skew"), short for Minnesota State Colleges and Universities. At least a big boat has a single rudder. MnSCU boasts 31 distinct institutions on 54 campuses in 47 cities, serving more than 400,000 degree-seeking or customized training students per year.
That makes the task on which MnSCU leadership has embarked both daunting and commendable. MnSCU is the product of a 1995 merger of state universities, community colleges and technical colleges that was intended to secure the quality higher education that Minnesota's economy needs, at an affordable price. A process has begun to accelerate MnSCU's delivery on that promise.
At the instigation of Chancellor Steven Rosenstone, three task forces broadly representative of MnSCU constituencies have produced a wide-ranging series of recommendations for change, in draft form. Collectively called "Charting the Future," the drafts are intended for dissemination and discussion in the next three months, leading to final recommendations to the MnSCU board of trustees before the year's end.
As higher education decisionmaking goes, that's an aggressive timeline. That, too, is praiseworthy. External forces — pinched government funding, for-profit competition, free online courses, the under-preparation of potential students — are buffeting traditional public higher education in ways that will damage those who do not adapt. As Rosenstone has said of the process he started, "It's hard. But it would be harder to do nothing."
Through myriad recommendations in the task forces' 36-page draft report, we see several welcome themes:
• A desire for MnSCU to function as a more unified system. For 18 years, MnSCU has given lip service to coordination among its disparate institutions, and has taken important steps in that direction, particularly in combining back-office operations. But, as the draft report acknowledges, much more can be done to truly operate as one system.
That means that instead of jealously protecting local autonomy regarding academic matters, institutions would yield to the system's central planners a host of decisions about the size, scope and location of programs. Elimination of unnecessary duplication would be a higher priority. Opportunities for joint program development across multiple institutions would be more vigorously pursued. So would:
• A statewide facilities plan. The draft report does not single out any campuses for downsizing or closure. But it recommends creation of a review process that seems likely to lead to such changes, even as it expands facilities where they are not adequate to student demand.