I keep hearing that Oklahoma and Oklahoma City needs to more diversify their economies. While I agree, people fail to realize that our economy is far more diversified than it used to be. Especially during the 1980s oil crash and bank failures. But, what I wonder is how we would go about diversifying more. Some make it sound as simple as snapping our fingers and we'll have more biotech, aerospace, and tech businesses moving to the state. So, what are some measures you'd like to see taken? Just as a token to millenials, loosening up our liquor laws would be a start. Send out people to scout businesses to move here and offer some incentives. Get the education issues fixed (beyond just teacher pay which is a cop-out IMO).

Aerospace engineering is probably the absolute best counterweight to oil and gas. When oil and gas is doing poorly, aerospace industry is flush with cash.

I keep hearing that Oklahoma and Oklahoma City needs to more diversify their economies. While I agree, people fail to realize that our economy is far more diversified than it used to be. Especially during the 1980s oil crash and bank failures. But, what I wonder is how we would go about diversifying more. Some make it sound as simple as snapping our fingers and we'll have more biotech, aerospace, and tech businesses moving to the state. So, what are some measures you'd like to see taken? Just as a token to millenials, loosening up our liquor laws would be a start. Send out people to scout businesses to move here and offer some incentives. Get the education issues fixed (beyond just teacher pay which is a cop-out IMO).

#1 Properly fund our education system. We're doing a poor job educating engineers, technicians, and scientists that make up the workforce companies looking to relocate consider in their decision-making. Also, when our education system is underfunded and broken, it's difficult for companies and recruiters to convince families to move here. By the way, teacher pay, which is just a part of education funding, is not a "cop-out" whatsoever. When those we depend on properly educating our future workforce can get paid better elsewhere (location or career wise) and leave us, we screw ourselves.

#2 Continue building infrastructure to make Oklahoma (City) an attractive place to live. The big lesson we learned via a punch to the gut and that led to MAPs was that few people wanted to move and live here, so we (OKC in this case) made massive investment into making the city more livable and attractive. We've made almost incalculable progress, which has led to jobs like Boeing and GE, but much more progress is needed. When OKC and Oklahoma is an even more attractive place to live, we'll get more companies relocating here. Part of making it more attractive is investment in infrastructure.

OKC lacks sufficient capital in the way of private and public funding to finance start ups and growth which would enable sufficient diversification. We have few wealth organizations, families and others who are eager to invest locally. Go to Austin and you will find capital funds, high net worth individuals and families, etc. willing to fund promising ventures. Same in DFW. Same in Denver. Same in Raleigh Durham. Etc. etc. But not in OKC. We lost our best one willing to do this....Aubrey. And many here were eager to run him out anyway. We need those in town who actually have wealth to put it to work here instead of other places. New bars, restaurants and laser tag playhouses don't diversify. Real investment and real jobs diversify.

^

That is very chicken-and-egg though.

The reason there is venture capital in those cities is because of all the new start-ups... And that really has to do with the educational environment more than anything else, which is why there is so much funding in the Silicon Valley, Raleigh / Durham and Austin.

^

That is very chicken-and-egg though.

The reason there is venture capital in those cities is because of all the new start-ups... And that really has to do with the educational environment more than anything else, which is why there is so much funding in the Silicon Valley, Raleigh / Durham and Austin.
I totally agree with the educational part.

Tulsa tends to kick our butts because their wealthy actually invest back in the city. Ours love to take their money to Dallas and are risk averse. I have witnessed high net worth individuals here pass on local investments to send their money to similarly rated investments in Dallas. It happens all the time.

How is Tulsa kicking OKC's butts in start-ups?

OKC has grown much faster and has a much larger employment base. A lot of that came from small businesses.

I know most people will see this as semantics, but it's really important not to refer to Oklahoma's education system as "broken" and in need of being "fixed." This is pretty insulting to classroom teachers and this rhetoric actually benefits the education deformers (see Janet Baresi, corporate reformers, etc.) who have most undermined Oklahoma's public education system.

A lot of well-meaning people used to say our education system was "broken" when I was a teacher in OKC, but I went to school everyday and I didn't see something that needed to be "fixed." Our school was succeeding based on national tests because of our amazing teachers and students. My students were passing AP tests (3 or above are generally accepted for college credit) at 90% and higher rates. I would have put our students and teachers against any public or private school in the state, and a lot of our successs was due to solid administrative and school support. A lot of my fellow teachers were pulling in extremely high scores also. We had a lot of incredibly committed educators who were working for far less than teachers in surrounding states/areas. We also had a lot of students with a lot of support from college educated parents at home. What our education system needs more than anything is financial and community support. We weren't broken and we didn't need to be fixed. The narrative has been repeated so often for so long a lot of people have just repeated it.

And I am in no way saying that Oklahoma's schools, teachers, admin, parents, or communities are perfect, there are ways to improve... but in studying educational reforms for years I can promise you that (a) improvements are almost always gradual, not sudden or immediate, (b) standardized testing has repeatedly failed to improve educational outcomes, and (c) that schools with high levels of poverty require wrap-around supports. To that last point, changing the outcomes of homeless, hungry, or abused students can be very challenging, but schools with the highest amounts of these issues often have the least financial and community support.

If Oklahoma wants to improve its educational system then it should start by changing the narrative that Oklahoma does not support public education. By paying teachers competitively and investing in both public K-12 and higher education then I promise you that perception of Oklahoma's education system will change quickly. If a new company wants to invest in OKC and they ask about the education system, people should be able to say, Yeah, we just invested in our public schools. Feel free to move your company here.

Sorry for the long, somewhat off topic post, but a successful education system is needed to recruit and retain new businesses. Probably the best way for Oklahoma to make changes is to change the narrative by financially (i.e., teacher salaries, quality facilities) and communally (i.e., volunteering at schools like the Plaza folks do at Gatewood Elementary) supporting public education.

The OKC area needs a great or at least very, very good university. It's the single biggest driver of a local economy.

After all the massive investment and changes, I was hoping OU would far a bit better in the national rankings but they've only moved up slightly.

I did see that OU passed Tulsa in the latest Forbes rating but that just means the best university in the state is pretty average.

Those national rankings don't really reflect whether the university is improving, but whether a university is meeting the arbitrary criteria the rankings measure. Several universities have gamed the system by focusing on improving their ranking at the expense of actually improving their university. There are a lot of good articles that focus on the serious flaws of those ranking systems, but as this one points out, "small movements in the rankings are simply “noise” and that any kind of sustained upward movement is both immensely expensive and nearly impossible.": https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/06/03/what-would-it-really-take-be-us-news-top-20

OU has moved back and forth in those rankings for years. Passing TU is almost completely meaningless... except that people seem to find these rankings important, which is a perception problem.

In short, OU has made very tangible improvements to the university over the last 25 years while also purusing some initiatives that give the university positive press (e.g., national merit scholars program). Of course, OU has to keep playing these silly games, but I would just avoid judging OU as an institution of higher learning based on the rankings. OU is likely to be in about the same spot even if they improve dramatically.

^

Those rankings matter to kids applying to college and in general reputation.

It's not a coincidence the highest rated schools get the best applicants and tend to throw off a lot of start-ups.


Oklahoma is completely void of a great university, and that hurts us.

For those who don't know, Pete is an alumnus of OU. So am I. One very sad fact, when I attended OU back in the late 60's and early 70's, OU received over 50% of its revenues from the state of Oklahoma (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/education/ou-president-david-boren-slams-governor-s-proposed-funding-cuts/article_710598d8-02fd-5bdd-ad45-80e6c1a6c631.html). Now OU and OSU receive 15% (probably less after the last legislative session).

Our Republican legislators think that leveling the tax rates so that our richest citizens pay the same rate as our middle class is "fair taxation". The real fact is Oklahoma's richest citizens now pay proportionally less taxes than our middle class since they utilize capital gains for reducing their taxes & the rich don't pay anything in FICA taxes after the first $118,500 in income. The rich also can utilize various tax loopholes unavailable to our middle class citizens.

Since our property taxes are 21st lowest in the nation (https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-the-highest-and-lowest-property-taxes/11585/) (and our property taxes cannot be used for state revenue), Oklahoma has to depend on income tax and sales tax to fund much of the state spending. Sales tax is very regressive, especially since food and life essentials are taxed. This means high sales tax unfairly exploits the poor and middle class. Since I live on Social Security for 95% of my income, that affects me highly. In spite of that, I plan on voting for the 1 cent increase in sales tax to fund raising teacher pay and increase funding for higher education. It's the only way our legislature will let us increase educational funding after continually underfunding education to give their wealthy friends an undeserved break in their taxes.

Please read the Tulsa World article cited above (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/education/ou-president-david-boren-slams-governor-s-proposed-funding-cuts/article_710598d8-02fd-5bdd-ad45-80e6c1a6c631.html) (if you haven't already done so)
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/education/ou-president-david-boren-slams-governor-s-proposed-funding-cuts/article_710598d8-02fd-5bdd-ad45-80e6c1a6c631.html

^

Those rankings matter to kids applying to college and in general reputation.

It's not a coincidence the highest rated schools get the best applicants and tend to throw off a lot of start-ups.


Oklahoma is completely void of a great university, and that hurts us.
You appear to be clueless on this topic. Stick to things you are well versed on. This post indicates minimal knowledge of education and specifically education in Oklahoma. Dan is right on with his previous two posts. We all know that when you get in quicksand, the more you struggle, the deeper you get.

I agree that the rankings matter to people even if the rankings are generally flawed. People in our society want everything to have a number even if it's an oversimplified metric that most people don't understand how it's even calculated (SAT score, IQ score, university rankings, etc.).

I'm curious though. How do you define "great university?" And what would, for example, OU have to do to become one?

You appear to be clueless on this topic. Stick to things you are well versed on. This post indicates minimal knowledge of education and specifically education in Oklahoma. Dan is right on with his previous two posts. We all know that when you get in quicksand, the more you struggle, the deeper you get.

So please explain how he is wrong instead of just saying it in your own words. Don't hide behind dankrukta...

Alright, alright. Let's just discuss the topic.

Back to my question (which is an honest one, not rhetorical), how should we define "great university?" And what would it take for OU to move towards that?

Well, what are the differences between OU and Stanford apart from the fact that one if private and the other is public? Is that the main difference? I also figure Stanford has much more funding. I'm asking a serious question because I don't know and have spent much time researching universities and what makes one great from another apart from rankings. Michigan University is great so how can OU become more like them? Does development affect it? I'm guessing so... Campus Corner should be expanded into downtown. Look how cool Westwood is to UCLA it has a bigger skyline than downtown OKC. Not that Campus Corner will become like Westwood, but an Apple Store, Trader Joe's, Chickfila etc. would help have amenities close to campus that would make it more like a bigger university.

As far as what to do on an academic level I don't know much about that. Paying better? Funding our programs better to attract top notch professors... MIT has several nuclear reactors and a great engineering program related to that so what kind of program besides sports does OU have like that, that stands out that? I know they have a good business program from what I've heard.

First, OU will never become Stanford and it has far more to do with their reputation, alumni base (i.e., donations), etc. And, no, I don't think the private/public comparison is very useful in comparing those two. Similarly, the University of Michigan has a lot of the same built-in advantages that Stanford has, but just to a lesser degree. Things like reputation and size are not easily, or even realistically, changed. However, I actually think OU has done a very nice job of building incredible on-campus buildings with fantastic resources, starting an honors college (I was in one of the first classes in 2000), building academic dorms (currently under construction), and fielding many top level programs. In fact, OU's graduate education program was rated a top 50 program when I was enrolled... even though it seems like it's dramatically improved since I left, I think it actually dropped in the rankings. OU is doing a lot of innovative things and that's why I would like to hear what we mean by "great university" and whether we have an idea of something that OU could actually achieve.

Just to shed a little more light on the field, it is important to, for example, understand the work of professors beacuse this exemplifies some of the problems in the ways higher education institutions are evaluated. Most professors are expected to do three (somewhat interconnected) things: (1) teach, (2) research, and (3) serve.

- Teaching is, for the vast majority of academics, their most important work. In teaching you are able to directly influence generations of students. However, in general, I have found an emphasis on teaching to be largely ignored because (ding ding ding!)... it doesn't count in university ranking metrics (and it is also very hard to evaluate).

- On the other hand, research is very easy to assess in the form of peer-reviewed publications and grants. And this is almost the only thing that professors do that affects university rankings... even though their research may only by read by a handful of people and have less impact than a single class.

- Professors are also expected to serve their college, university, field, and community (which is pretty easy to evaluate) by serving on committees and such, but this also counts for pretty much nothing in university rankings.

In summary, professors' contributions to academic rankings are almost solely based on their publications, which in some cases may have almost no influence. This is why I point out that we should understand that academic rankings are generally just prestige rankings with little practical reflection of their value to their local, state, and national communities.

And I'm not at all knocking the importance of academic research, but just that it's actual influence (not simply the "impact factor" -- another flawed metric) is not well measured by current metrics. Obviously, teaching and service should be more highly valued as they can make a huge difference in what the university actually contributed to the community.

The increase in academic prominence at OU should replace football as the top priority . OU reflects the mindset of the State as a whole, content with mediocrity, being middle of the pack not excelling at any one thing. Spend some of the football millions to invest in world class professors, significantly increase research outside of weather, improve engineering science and math. raise entrance standards. Of course Oklahoma's abysmal secondary education system sends so many unprepared student to OU they have a separate building to help them stay in school. As an OU grad I do not expect OU to reach of UVA, UNC, Duke all very highly ranked schools in my region. OU should aspire to reach the 70-80 range in the rankings versus 108

Alright, alright. Let's just discuss the topic.

Back to my question (which is an honest one, not rhetorical), how should we define "great university?" And what would it take for OU to move towards that?

Oklahoma needs to have at least one university on par with the best public universities, like most the Big 10, U. of North Carolina, U of Texas at Austin, etc.

Right now, OU is a clear cut below those schools by any objective measure.

And all those schools are fantastic economic engines for neighboring cities and the entire state.

Oklahoma needs to have at least one university on par with the best public universities, like most the Big 10, U. of North Carolina, U of Texas at Austin, etc.

Right now, OU is a clear cut below those schools by any objective measure.

And all those schools are fantastic economic engines for neighboring cities and the entire state.

What "objective measures" would you like to see OU improve and how? Again, just blanket statements saying OU should be as state universities with far larger endowments, alumni bases, and resources is, well easy to say, but impossible to achieve. What would you actually like to see OU do?

Improve in the measures used to come up with such rankings: Endowment, student retention, faculty approval rate, acceptance standards, graduation rates, etc., etc.

None of that is impossible but takes a long, sustained program to target those areas and invest in them.

Boren has done a great job (like $1 billion endowment) but obviously there is a ways to go.

The increase in academic prominence at OU should replace football as the top priority . OU reflects the mindset of the State as a whole, content with mediocrity, being middle of the pack not excelling at any one thing. Spend some of the football millions to invest in world class professors, significantly increase research outside of weather, improve engineering science and math. raise entrance standards. Of course Oklahoma's abysmal secondary education system sends so many unprepared student to OU they have a separate building to help them stay in school. As an OU grad I do not expect OU to reach of UVA, UNC, Duke all very highly ranked schools in my region. OU should aspire to reach the 70-80 range in the rankings versus 108

Academics are a huge priority at OU. It's not an either/or academics/athletics situation. In fact, OU uses it's athletic success for academic benefits maybe better than any university in the country. OU has one of only seven athletic departments in the country that operates at a profit, and is one of the only ones that actually gives money back to academics.

Regarding academic rankings, I'm guessing you didn't read the article I posted about how there's no realistic way to actually improve your rankings. If you've given attention to those rankings, OU actually shifts between the 70s and 110s in the rankings from year-to-year over the last decade or so. This almost has nothing to do with OU (which has continually improved its academic programs since Boren's arrival), but the arbitrary ways the rankings are produced.

So, in short, you'll be happy to hear that OU has actually done every single thing you suggested in your post. Literally, everything you mentioned.

Improve in the measures used to come up with such rankings: Endowment, student retention, faculty approval rate, acceptance standards, graduation rates, etc., etc.

None of that is impossible but takes a long, sustained program to target those areas and invest in them.

Boren has done a great job (like $1 billion endowment) but obviously there is a ways to go.

If OU succeeds in doing well in every metric you mentioned, OU will still be ranked below the universities you mentioned (UNC, UT).

Arguing that OU should pass UNC and UT in these rankings is like asking, why doesn't OKC just try harder and pass Denver and Seattle as desireable urban cities?

I never said OU should pass those universities, just be in the same general category and the same general conversation of all the public Big 10 schools.

Great post, BTW, JohnH_in_OKC. The biggest change that can help OU and K-12 education is to increase state funding. It's awful that Boren felt the need to advocate for a sales tax to fund education, but he's facing a crisis. I hope people vote for it even though it the absolute wrong way to increase education funding. Oklahomans can't depend on the state legislature to improve things... (Although, I highly recommend voters consider the teacher caucus that is running along more practical, and less ideological grounds)

So I'm curious because you seem very knowledgeable about this and I don't know that much, how would you make OU better? What are things they can work on and improve?

Here is OU's US News ranking starting in 2007: Oklahoma 112 108 108 102 111 101 101 101 106 108

I never said OU should pass those universities, just be in the same general category and the same general conversation of all the public Big 10 schools.

Considering OU is in a far worse position than probably all Big 10 universities, I actually think they are in about as good of a position as they could be. There is not a big difference in perception between OU and Nebraska.

I don't see another university in the Big 10 that OU can be considered equal to in terms of prestige (i.e., academic rankings) maybe ever... even with increased state funding and attention towards every standard you mentioned previously. Again, it's about as realistic as OKC catching Seattle or Denver in terms of urban development.

And it's also important to point out that OU actually has some of the best programs in the country/world where they should -- meterology, energy-related majors, etc. While I think OU can continue to grow and improve, I think they've really maximized their resources to enhance their academic profile. In many ways, Boren is a political genius. He's dedicated resources towards all the things that he can get the most leverage out of for the university... I follow this stuff pretty closely since I'm in academia and I can't think of many presidents who do more to promote the academic profile of their university than Boren. I'm very worried about who takes over when he's gone.

Considering OU is in a far worse position than probably all Big 10 universities, I actually think they are in about as good of a position as they could be. There is not a big difference in perception between OU and Nebraska.

I don't see another university in the Big 10 that OU can be considered equal to in terms of prestige (i.e., academic rankings) maybe ever... even with increased state funding and attention towards every standard you mentioned previously. Again, it's about as realistic as OKC catching Seattle or Denver in terms of urban development.
This kind of mentality really bums me out. I mean, Buffalo, New York used to be one of the biggest cities in the US. Same thing with Detroit. Now ask yourself, how would Seattle be if they would have followed the mentality of we can never become as big as Seattle is in 2016 100 years ago? Same thing with Dallas. I see no reason to believe with the right circumstances that OKC couldn't reach the level of Seattle in terms of development in the right conditions. Unlikely, sure? Unrealistic? I disagree. It can happen.

Furthermore, I think with more funding and aggressive campaigning to really improve certain programs like what MIT does with nuclear engineering, OU could put its mark on the spot. Even if it were in the top 15. How did the top 10 become the top 10?

Indiana 75, Michigan State 75, Iowa 82....

Why shouldn't we expect OU to be at least this good?

This is not at all the same leap as comparing OKC to Seattle.

This kind of mentality really bums me out. I mean, Buffalo, New York used to be one of the biggest cities in the US. Same thing with Detroit. Now ask yourself, how would Seattle be if they would have followed the mentality of we can never become as big as Seattle is in 2016 100 years ago? Same thing with Dallas. I see no reason to believe with the right circumstances that OKC couldn't reach the level of Seattle in terms of development in the right conditions. Unlikely, sure? Unrealistic? I disagree. It can happen.

Furthermore, I think with more funding and aggressive campaigning to really improve certain programs like what MIT does with nuclear engineering, OU could put its mark on the spot. Even if it were in the top 15. How did the top 10 become the top 10?

It's not a mentality. OU, and OKC more recently, have both had a very can-do mentality. There's a difference between doing everything you can to grow and improve, and just being silly. For example, it would be equivalent to me saying, Tulsa is better than OKC because they tried to host the Olympics and OKC just hosted some little Olympic Trials at their whitewater center. I guess that's all OKC can be. Must be because OKC has a weak mentality. That bums me out. No, success is relative. OU and OKC can strive to be everything they can be... what else can you do?

It's not a mentality. OU, and OKC more recently, have both had a very can-do mentality. There's a difference between doing everything you can to grow and improve, and just being silly. For example, it would be equivalent to me saying, why aren't you as successful of an actor as Brad Pitt? Is it because you have a weak mentality. That bums me out. No, success is relative. OU and OKC can strive to be everything they can be... what else can you do?

Well, I think the acting thing is a lot of luck. There are a ton of great actors who aren't famous and I'm only starting out. I suppose time will tell whether or not I become as famous as Brad Pitt. But as for OU, there are things they can do without relying on luck and time which is why I think it could be better. I just don't know exactly what they can do.

I'm also curious to know and maybe I missed it, but what is your position on this because I'm not exactly getting it. Not trying to be argumentative here, but you seem to be taking the devils advocate position. Are you happy with OU's position?

Yeah, I agree that acting is a lot of luck. I actually switched my example to Tulsa's Olympic bid ^^^. On a side note, good luck with your acting. Even if you don't "make it big," that doesn't mean you weren't a success. That's kind of similar to how I look at OU. OU can make a huge impact on the state by doing things the right way, doing things that matter. They may not ever be ranked as high Ohio State, but that doesn't mean they failed within their context -- Oklahoma.

Yeah, I agree that acting is a lot of luck. I actually switched my example to Tulsa's Olympic bid ^^^. On a side note, good luck with your acting. Even if you don't "make it big," that doesn't mean you weren't a success. That's kind of similar to how I look at OU. OU can make a huge impact on the state by doing things the right way, doing things that matter. They may not ever be ranked as high Ohio State, but that doesn't mean they failed within their context -- Oklahoma.

Thanks! I love this field and am very happy outside of a few personal issues(broken heart :''''''( >_<) but I do love this industry.

I don't think OU is a failure by any means. I love the campus and think it's a good school. I want to see it improve however and keep growing to be the best that it can be.

Another thing I should have shared is that I've known numerous professors at universities where they are determined to up their academic rankings -- and almost across the board, the moves to do so have been terrible for students and faculty. It's just a lot of arbitrary top-down pressure to, for example, ignore their teaching and focus on research or grants that end up making less of a long-term difference. (And yes, I've heard academics who look down on teaching as unimportant, but that's because it doesn't affect rankings/prestige). I've just seen the push for higher academic status go very wrong over and over again.

This discussion also completely ignores all the other universities in the state, which also make a huge difference. For example, I know UCO's education department (like OU's) is really doing some tremendous things for the OKC metro, but those things will never be reflected by any rankings. It's just important to focus on what really makes a difference IMHO...

Prestige takes a long time to build, especially if we're talking about the academic elite. Look at the difference between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Los Angeles has grown to become the 2nd largest city in the country and, in my experience, most "elite" would argue that San Fran is the greater city. But San Fran's history all the way back to the 1800s was more presitigious (and less "Mexican").

Realistically, Oklahoma was preceded by 45 states in entering the union and the overwhelming majority by a quarter century or more. Moreover, we were unique in that we were never part of Mexico and specifically positioned away from European development for so long. Oklahoma didn't have it's first institution of Higher Education (UCO) until 1890 (only Alaska and Hawaii outlasted us). Our history doesn't really lend to being among the top half of states for most metrics. The fact that OK has moved up the ladder as quickly as we have is pretty impressive.

We're not just going to leap frog other prestigous institutions, be they cities or universities, over night. Leaps into new categories take 30/60/100 years. And we've really only been rolling for about 5-10 years.

Great post, Teo, and I agree. And I still think it's worth asking whether or not it would be good to try to become more "prestigious?" If that means jumping through hoops that neither improve student or faculty experiences nor benefit the state, then I'd say no. If there's a way to meet those goals and raise the status of OU then, of course, go for it.

One of the biggest problems in education is too many legislators and citizens argue for higher "standards" and "prestige" without actually having any idea how those things are, should be, or can be measured. Heck, the most misused word in education from my experience is "learning" as I almost exclusively hear people talk about it in terms of short-term memorization for standardized tests, not long-term growth in knowledge, dispositions, skills, and wisdom.

To improve OU? Bigger endowment, better programs, more selective in regards to students. That's easy to say and hard to do.

According to Wikipedia, our endowment is at about 1.5 billion right now. If we could double it to $3 billion, that would put us in line with UNC, and ahead of several schools like Michigan State, Purdue, and Illinois. To get there? The next time oil goes through the roof, Boren (or whoever) needs to hit up big donors (and the state) pretty hard for more money.

One thing that hurts OU in some rankings is the fact that our medical school is in OKC, not in Norman. But moving it back to main campus would be counterproductive to the overall goal of improving OKC.

OKC and the state of Oklahoma need to coordinate with OU as far as its improvement goes. Lets say we want to push for Boeing to bring more jobs to the state. So we need more aerospace engineers. OU has a PhD aerospace engineering program. I have no idea how big it is or how prestigious it is (I Googled it, and let's just say the top 10 are about who you'd expect). But let's say we want to improve it. Googling again, Georgia Tech is ranked #2 (tied), and it looks like a guy named Gary May is the Dean of their College of Engineering. Let's go out and get him, like we would target a great football coach. Hire him to come in and transform our engineering program. Get him to do that, give him the funding he needs, and then the city and state go after Boeing. "Hey, by the time you finish moving your facilities, we'll have a big crop of graduates waiting for you..."

To really diversify the economy, you need graduates to start companies here, and let them grow. That's the best way to diversify. OKC can start helping that with the Innovation District.

If OU moved the medical complex back to Norman, could someone like OCU take over it? I realize that will probably never happen just due to the cost, but is something like that possible?

Medical schools belong in our nation's big cities. OU has medical campuses both in OKC and Tulsa. The University of Texas has medical schools in Austin, San Antonio, Galveston, Dallas and Houston. Norman does not need a medical school. It is well served by its existing hospitals.

The same North Carolina whose faculty was blatantly cheating for their athletes?

The quality of an educational institution boils down to the quality of the professors and the students. Everything else is essentially recruitment for those 2 things, because what we need are bright minds creating value for humanity. The reality is that money is the best tool for recruitment of professors and students, both for direct recruitment (salary/scholarship) and resources (facilities, etc.)

While OU is a Top 75 school in terms of overall endowment, It doesn't rank in the Top 250 in terms of endowment per student. The reality is that OU is the preeminent state university and needs to provide a broad number of programs, I'm not sure if it would be at all realistic to remove any programs and come to an agreement with another university in the state to take on that program and allow OU to focus future resources into its stronger programs. It's perhaps something to look into.

I wonder if what the State of Oklahoma needs is to have a few Top 25, if not Top 10 Schools? It seems throughout the state we have quite a few Top 25, if not Top 10 programs in a variety of studies. But we don't have a Top 25 School of Business/Medicine/The Arts/Engineering/etc.

The reason I say this is because I think these great programs end up on an island and when the graduates of these programs get out in the real world, they realize that they don't have the secondary or tertiary supports to set up shop here in Oklahoma. The strategy of having great programs for petroleum engineering makes sense but is potentially redundant. Having a great School of Dance like we do at OCU is probably operating inefficiently if students are going to come get educated and then immediately leave. We need graduates to stay and build if we want to move forward. So we need city leaders and university officials to come together and identify opportunities for growth and work together to make sure that all those things can come together. It could be a large expansion of something that we already have some traction in (Aerospace/Aviation) or something that we have little to nothing that's nationally competitive (Tech/Arts). I lean toward the large expansion because what we need is more Fortune 500 companies that can come in and help anchor our cities alongside the strong oil companies.

The Michael F. Price College of Business is ranked as one of the nation’s top business schools at the undergraduate and graduate levels. The Princeton Review and Entrepreneur Magazine named the entrepreneurship undergraduate program in the top 5 and the graduate program in the top 20. Also, the college’s international business program was ranked for the 10th consecutive year as a top 25 program by U.S. News & World Report.

OU Geology ranked 14th or 15th, depending on source. But generally top 20. However, ranked as low as 42. Shows you the exact science of ranking universities and their programs. Even the "experts" don't agree.

Ranked #7 in Petroleum Engineering by US News.

Dance magazine places the OU School of Dance in the top three of all dance programs in the country.

OU's Weitzenhoffer School of Musical Theatre is generally considered one of the top 10 in the US by the industry.

The OU School of Meteorology is ranked #1 in the nation in mesoscale and severe storms research and is ranked among the top 5 programs overall.

Bestofcolleges.com has listed OU's advertising degree as one of the nation's top ten advertising programs.

As for student quality level, OU has more National Merit Scholars enrolled than any other public university.

OU has achieved the Carnegie Foundation’s highest tier of research activity classification

We understand that OU isn't the Harvard of the plains, but depending on what your are studying, it is quite good and a great value.

OU has steadily grown its endowment while also engaging in an aggressive program for improving classroom environments and student living conditions. At the same time, it has grown permanent endowments to nearly 600 professorial positions.

And remember, they are doing that while the state's support has steadily and severely diminished.

Well, Rover settled it. Our Universities are already great. What's everyone's next idea?

I think the point is that OU is really doing quite well in a number of areas and that doesn't always come across in discussions. Of course, OU, OSU, and all other universities should look for ways to improve, but in OU's case (I don't know as much about other universities), I think they really have been very aggressive and innovative in improving both the university and profile. Of course, the idea of targetting specific programs is a good idea that has been brought, but that is also something OU has done in spite of huge financial barriers.

Until the state of Oklahoma makes it a priority to have superior universities, there is only so much OU can do.

But this absolutely should be a goal: Invest in our public universities and you will get that back many fold through the economic engine that is created.

I couldn't agree more.

"You cannot cut your way to prosperity." ~ Anyone who knows anything about business or economics.

I think patience is key. I'm too young to know what OK/OKC/OU were like from the 60s-80s, especially compared to other states/cities/universities, but based on where we landed from the mid-'80s to the late '00s, I'm pretty sure the good surely can't have outweighed the bad. That might be a flawed perspective because it's always easier to destroy than it is to build, but I feel like we saw a pretty flawed foundation in the wake of the 80s oil bust.

I think, especially in OKC and for OU, the initial building blocks laid in the '90s and '00s that were generated in response to the mistakes made in earlier decades have only recently finished the foundation that we're building everything on top of, based on the growth we have seen in the last 5-10 years, it would appear that the foundations laid are pretty solid. The focus should now be on maintaining focus on those things (much as dan has been saying) and making sure that we bring in leaders who will continue to be strong stewards for a successful future.

The negative rhetoric, again as dan pointed out, only serves to make us believe that we're still a long ways off and that we need to make notable changes in our approach. I say we maintain our course until 2020/25 and then begin to set our aims higher.

I definitely see the State as floundering a bit overall, which is another reason why OKC needs Tulsa to progress yesterday so that the cities can begin to make decisions that influence the state overall toward being a better place.

The education budget issues are going to be a real cause for concern if things don't turn around fast at 23rd and Lincoln.

I definitely see the State as floundering a bit overall, which is another reason why OKC needs Tulsa to progress yesterday so that the cities can begin to make decisions that influence the state overall toward being a better place.

The education budget issues are going to be a real cause for concern if things don't turn around fast at 23rd and Lincoln.

This really bears repeating. OKC is doing okay economically (up 7K jobs for the year, unemployment still relatively low) but the balance of Oklahoma outside of the metro is pretty weak at the current moment. Tulsa is actually down jobs, which is head scratching considering they are less dependent on O&G than OKC. Duncan has an unemployment rate of around 9.4%. That is an extreme case, but a lot of rural areas are really struggling.

What concerns me is that one metro area at is at most 37% of the state is supposed to prop up the remaining 63%? It doesn't typically work well.

Well, Rover settled it. Our Universities are already great. What's everyone's next idea?

I know especially this year it is popular to be sarcastic and snide, but the point wasn't that we have arrived, but that the cupboard isn't bare either. There are things to build on despite the horrible level of ametuerism and backwardness of our tea party legislators, governor and her cabinet. We need commitment and capital.

sarcastic and snide

Oh, the irony.

Oh, the irony.
Is that you Donald?

I believe "economic gardening" is best for for the State of Oklahoma.

https://citiesspeak.org/2013/01/11/what-is-economic-gardening-and-why-does-it-matter/

http://icma.org/en/Article/100633/Seven_Steps_to_Developing_an_Economic_Gardening_Im plementation_Strategy
Economic gardening directs focus on those business entities and industry sectors currently found in state. It's a pro-growth strategy designed to grow businesses/industries currently located in the state, and subordinates chasing those opportunities out-of-state, which may not be compatible.

Would be great to see more "in organic growth" occur with the existing businesses through more mergers, acquisitions and takeovers. I love home grown businesses, however the State can also use some good out of state expertise to broaden their horizons.

Bringing this thread back... there's not really much we as individuals can do besides vote and stay politically active and aware (and pressure the politicians to not enact stupid laws) in recruiting businesses and industries. I looked into seeing if I could join a chamber and it appears it's pretty much reserved for business owners.

Day dreaming: I'd love to see an increase in Internet and tech based industries popping up in Tulsa and OKC. Even a fraction of what Austin has experienced would be phenomenal.