Diversifying the economy

[ChrisHayes]

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).

[catch22]

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.

[king183]

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.

[Rover]

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.

[Pete]

^

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.

[Rover]

^

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.

[Pete]

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.

[dankrutka]

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.

[Pete]

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.

[dankrutka]

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/...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.

[Pete]

^

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.

[JohnH_in_OKC]

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. 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 (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 (if you haven't already done so)
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/educa...6c1a6c631.html

[SOONER8693]

^

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.

[dankrutka]

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?

[Plutonic Panda]

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...

[dankrutka]

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?

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[dankrutka]

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.

[dcsooner]

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

[Pete]

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.

[dankrutka]

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?

[Pete]

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.

[dankrutka]

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.

[dankrutka]

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?

[Pete]

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.