Lost and Found database

FROM UOPD Lost and Found information:


I wanted to take a moment to let you know about the new UOPD lost and found page: http://police.uoregon.edu/content/uo-police-lost-and-found

In addition to our voicemail (541-346-3232) and e-mail found@uopd.org reporting, we now are utilizing an online reporting system for lost and found property.  This system allows someone to submit a report that they have lost something and the system automatically checks to see if there is a match in the inventory.

If you have someone inquiring about lost and found, could you please direct them to the website?

If you have lost and found items you wish to send to UOPD you can either send the items via campus mail or, for larger lost and found collections, contact us via e-mail or phone to arrange to have the items picked up.

Questions?  Please let me know.


Sincerely, Royce Myers


Where’s the money going?

I have no idea. I’m sure the Trustees don’t either. For that matter the Deans seem pretty mystified too.

Here’s a little data I was able to pull from the spreadsheets at https://brp.uoregon.edu/, showing the “total expenditure budget”. I’m sure it doesn’t tell the whole story of how Johnson Hall decided to allocate the 21% increase in spending from FY15 to FY18, but for now it’s all I’ve got. Planning for the FY19 budget is supposedly already done, but I haven’t seen any numbers.

If you have more info please pass it on.

 FY15  FY18 % change
100100 –  President Administrative Operations  $3,904,358  $3,353,192 -14%
102000 –  General Counsel  $2,167,164  $2,948,103 36%
106000 –  Office of the University Secretary  $783,214  $784,836 0%
120000 –  Senior VP and Provost Operations  $5,087,183  $3,676,749 -28%
150001 –  Academic Extension  $19,231,972  $20,234,765 5%
200100 –  Academic Affairs  $13,662,469  $9,539,764 -30%
210325 –  UO Portland  $4,744,467  $5,606,571 18%
211000 –  VP for Equity & Inclusion  $3,677,529  $4,422,260 20%
212000 –  Vice Provost for Budget & Planning  $1,010,706  $1,167,880 16%
221000 –  Architecture & Allied Arts, School  $22,188,657  $26,949,161 21%
222000 –  Arts & Sciences, College of  $179,290,406  $165,710,841 -8%
224000 –  Honors College  $4,478,698  $6,534,086 46%
225000 –  Business, College of  $31,587,391  $45,642,349 44%
226000 –  Education, College of  $35,288,116  $44,010,083 25%
227000 –  Journalism & Communicatn, School of  $26,261,065  $24,844,249 -5%
228000 –  Law, School of  $19,922,636  $11,936,620 -40%
229000 –  Music and Dance, School of  $13,088,690  $15,528,412 19%
250000 –  Library  $28,705,301  $30,130,618 5%
262000 –  Enrollment Management  $22,936,867  $28,904,313 26%
262010 –  VP Student Life Administration  $5,769,242  $20,906,688 262%
263000 –  Information Services  $22,564,767  $28,230,231 25%
264000 –  International Affairs  $14,622,063  $16,130,006 10%
265000 –  Graduate School  $2,510,852  $5,388,307 115%
266900 –  Physical Education and Recreation  $13,507,039  $12,946,971 -4%
267000 –  Undergraduate Studies  $6,757,702  $7,524,382 11%
267500 –  Counseling & Testing Center  $4,713,500  $4,722,473 0%
267600 –  Career Center  $1,773,108  $1,931,545 9%
267900 –  Dean of Students & AVP Stdnt Life  $9,213,399  $3,651,752 -60%
400500 –  Budget and Finance Division  $834,648  $834,648 0%
410000 –  VP Fin & Admin Operations  $3,302,783  $7,380,976 123%
410310 –  Institutional Research  $654,201  $794,763 21%
410500 –  Campus Planning, Design & Constr  $2,498,911 -100%
410600 –  Office of Internal Audit  $596,256  $811,538 36%
410800 –  Enterprise Risk Services  $3,200,331  $4,805,055 50%
420000 –  Budget and Resource Planning  $867,096  $904,966 4%
422111 –  VPSL Holden Center  $706,583  $785,966 11%
425000 –  Student Union, EMU  $16,128,118  $20,043,628 24%
430000 –  Business Affairs Office  $27,160,932  $74,627,454 175%
432000 –  Purchasing & Contracting Services  $1,370,300  $1,959,954 43%
433300 –  Printing & Mailing Services  $4,904,223  $5,768,424 18%
440000 –  Human Resources  $7,535,311  $9,862,787 31%
440500 –  Affirmative Action  $780,862 -100%
450000 –  Campus Operations  $48,197,233  $49,575,907 3%
460000 –  Police Department  $5,644,855  $5,213,831 -8%
460509 –  Parking and Transportation  $1,980,545  $4,191,019 112%
470000 –  University Housing  $66,774,698  $80,026,521 20%
480000 –  Athletics  $104,001,882  $115,656,341 11%
490000 –  University Health Center  $19,081,659  $19,640,974 3%
500100 –  University Advancement  $26,197,240  $18,009,619 -31%
500200 – University Communications  $11,867,189 #DIV/0!
600000 –  Research  $41,046,060  $59,293,226 44%
900100-UO General / Budget Control  $41,663,697 #DIV/0!
910000-UO General Business Operations  $809,089 #DIV/0!
913698-UO Building/Property Management  $4,932,616 #DIV/0!
Grand Total  $902,913,288  $1,092,817,393  21%

More misguided metrics – this time it’s “learning outcomes” assessment

UNC History Professor Molly Worthen in the NYT on learning outcomes assessment:

I teach at a big state university, and I often receive emails from software companies offering to help me do a basic part of my job: figuring out what my students have learned.

If you thought this task required only low-tech materials like a pile of final exams and a red pen, you’re stuck in the 20th century. In 2018, more and more university administrators want campuswide, quantifiable data that reveal what skills students are learning. Their desire has fed a bureaucratic behemoth known as learning outcomes assessment. This elaborate, expensive, supposedly data-driven analysis seeks to translate the subtleties of the classroom into PowerPoint slides packed with statistics — in the hope of deflecting the charge that students pay too much for degrees that mean too little.

It’s true that old-fashioned course grades, skewed by grade inflation and inconsistency among schools and disciplines, can’t tell us everything about what students have learned. But the ballooning assessment industry — including the tech companies and consulting firms that profit from assessment — is a symptom of higher education’s crisis, not a solution to it. …

No intellectual characteristic is too ineffable for assessment. Some schools use lengthy surveys like the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory, which claims to test for qualities like “truthseeking” and “analyticity.” The Global Perspective Inventory, administered and sold by Iowa State University, asks students to rate their agreement with statements like “I do not feel threatened emotionally when presented with multiple perspectives” and scores them on metrics like the “intrapersonal affect scale.” …

UO’s federal accreditor is the not very transparent Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU). Their website has a message from their interim president:

I am writing to thank you for your participation in and support of the activities we initiated last November to gather information from you about how NWCCU can better achieve its mission of assuring educational quality, enhancing institutional effectiveness, and fostering continuous improvement. Your response to the survey and participation in the Annual Meeting and Town Halls guided development of a report from the Task Force on Renewal of Recognition that was accepted by the Board of Commissioners at its January 2018 meeting.

One of the most consistent recommendations received was that we improve communication with the member institutions. This message is part of a larger communication strategy that we are implementing to move forward on the recommendations of the Task Force.

Speaking of communication, good luck trying to find the Task Force report on their website.

UO’s website at https://accreditation.uoregon.edu/ documents the years of work faculty and administrators have spent on this assessment crap on orders from the NWCCU. More is coming.

Dana Altman won’t coach Ducks in tonight’s Arizona game

Apparently federal prosecutors and the IRS are investigating accusations that $3M-a-year coach Dana Altman failed to pay his players. Duck AD Rob Mullens thought it best to suspend him until the matter has been cleared up and the athletic department has paid the athletes any back-wages due.

In contrast, no accusations of wage theft have been made against Arizona coach Sean Miller, who has carefully documented his efforts to fairly compensate his student-athletes. More in the RG here.

Reporter hot on trail of Duck Vegas Bowl junket scandal


Senate President Sinclair broke the first rule of Vegas when he mentioned the Ice Bar escapade at a recent Senate meeting – on video. Now the press is on the trail:

Thanks Chris, next year was my turn, and you’ve gone and ruined it. How is the Senate going to find a new president-elect with this kind of scandal out there?

Fortunately our Public Records Office are experts at delaying and frustrating public records requests. I wonder what their excuse is for denying this one? Some of the long history of Duck junkets and public records is below:

3/31/2015: Hubin’s PR office finally gives Tublitz the BCS championship junket lists

Continue reading

Honors College reorganization and tuition cuts

Sent out yesterday:

Message on behalf of Jayanth Banavar and Karen Ford ~


Thank you for taking the time to talk with us Tuesday afternoon about our goals for the Clark Honors College and for the experience we want the students to have who call it their academic home.

The teaching and research you do every day have established the CHC as a premier honors college.  I want to thank you for that important work, your dedication to students, and your participation in the effort to shape the future of the honors college for years to come. 

As you know, for many months we have been discussing how best to serve our students. There have been lively conversations, feedback opportunities, data analyses, and thoughtful deliberations as we look to create an environment where our shared values can be of the greatest benefit to the student experience. 

As was announced last week, President Schill intends to recommend to the Board of Trustees a significant reduction in the CHC’s differential tuition. If approved, this reduction will make us more competitive with our peers from a pricing standpoint. It is now time for us to become more nimble and able to offer a greater diversity of options to our current and prospective students. This will make us even more competitive in the overall academic experience. 

As discussed, we will begin the work that will allow us to serve students optimally by responding to the shifting student base, diversifying the faculty, revising the curriculum, and establishing ways to encourage the UO’s most accomplished teachers outside of the CHC to share their talents with CHC students, and UO’s accomplished scholar-teachers inside of the CHC to share their talents with the wider UO.

While we know that change can create apprehension, we want to reiterate to you that our commitment to the very best qualities of the honors college will not change. We will continue to offer continuity of advising, rigorous and small classes, high academic standards, a close-knit academic community, and a dedication to student success.

To provide the best possible education for our students, we are eager to create an environment where the broader UO community can more readily embrace the CHC and its mission. And, like any unit on campus, we must be forward-thinking while also managing resources in an efficient, sustainable, and scalable manner.

In terms of next steps, we will:

·       Provide for the voluntary relocation of our tenure-track faculty to a disciplinary unit, effective July 1, 2018;

·       Recruit faculty from across UO to teach in the honors college to balance disciplinary representation, diversify faculty, and give accomplished UO instructors an opportunity to teach our high-achieving students;

·       Have faculty tenured in the honors college teach at least a course every other year in their home discipline(s), where they will have the opportunity to teach and advise graduate students;

·       Through the Institutional Hiring Plan, collaborate with the deans of the other schools and colleges to propose faculty positions that benefit both the CHC and the other schools and colleges;

·       Assemble the CHC Appointments Advisory Council with membership from the CHC and the UO to advise the dean on faculty appointments to the honors college; and

·       Evaluate all faculty assigned to the CHC with respect to their appointments in the CHC.

We recognize there are many questions, and there remain many details to work out. Your patience is very much appreciated through this process.

We are eager for the CHC to get started on this important initiative and are extremely excited by the possibilities it provides. Thank you for your work with Clark Honors College students and for your scholarly contributions to your fields, the CHC, and the UO. We look forward to working with you – and many other new partners – as we create the finest honors college experience in the nation.

Sincerely, Karen and Jayanth

Meanwhile tuition will increase for regular UO students. The Emerald has more about the HC here:

Incoming students at the Robert D. Clark Honors College typically look forward to having small class sizes, building relationships with professors and working with students who are academically driven.

But between the cost and the time commitment, the honors college may not be worth it for some students.

For freshman Avery Turner, it almost seemed like a punishment. Turner found herself paying $4,194 on top of regular tuition. Turner said that after working hard in high school, it was frustrating to pay more to work harder. She also said the college was slowing her down — without it, Avery could graduate in three years with a double major in psychology and political science.

Avery is not alone. Many other students agree with her sentiments and highlight a number of concerns with CHC at the University of Oregon. CHC can be expensive and doesn’t include enough science courses or fit with students’ heavy credit loads, leading many to ask the same question: Is the honors college worth it?


“No one should be charged. That would be nuts.” Prof Simmons

2013 Snowpocalypse repost:

Members of the Campus Community:

On Friday, a short video was posted to YouTube depicting an incident in which several individuals inappropriately interfered with two vehicles attempting to drive through a snowball fight on our campus.

The UO Police Department responded to the situation quickly, and in concert with the Office of the Dean of Students and other campus officials began an immediate investigation of the incident. We have identified several of the individuals involved as UO students and are determining appropriate disciplinary actions to be taken in accordance with the university’s established policies and protocols. In cases where those involved are student-athletes, additional disciplinary action is being carried out by the Athletics Department.

Over the weekend, the UO Police Department, Dean of Students Paul Shang, and Coach Mark Helfrich spoke with the motorists seen in the video, an emeritus faculty member and a current staff member. Dean Shang issued a public statement on Saturday that read, in part:

“The University of Oregon takes the conduct of its students seriously. Consequences are clear for those whose actions reflect poorly upon the university or violate its standards for student behavior. However, until the facts of the snowball-throwing incident are sorted out, it would be premature to speculate about any potential outcomes in this case.”

Dean Shang’s full statement, as well as other statements regarding the university’s response to this incident, will be posted on the UO Communications website as they become available.

As president, I assure you that the University of Oregon will not stand for behavior that threatens the safety of our campus or violates our code of conduct. This unacceptable incident is not being taken lightly, and we continue to take swift, appropriate action to address the matter.


Michael Gottfredson, President

The ODE editorial page on the snowball fight and the administration’s reaction to it: Shame and embarrassment. Meanwhile the video has now reached 2M youtube downloads, and more than 400 comments. As President Gottfredson told the faculty Senate on Wednesday, you just can’t buy the kind of publicity that the Duck athletics program brings to UO.

The administration has cancelled all 8AM Monday exams. Official panic alert here.

  • Wondering what to do about conflicts with rescheduled times (which were not posted as of 7:40PM)? UO Policy is that the prof of the larger class has to deal with it – page to bottom here. But that policy is now replaced with this recommendation, from http://alerts.uoregon.edu/

    “If your rescheduled exam time is in conflict with another exam already scheduled, it is recommended that you attend the exam that was not moved and contact the faculty member of the rescheduled exam and ask to schedule the exam for another time. Faculty members whose exams have been rescheduled have been asked to be flexible when conflicts arise.‬”

  • Didn’t get an email and wondering where and when your exam now is? If your frostbitten gangrenous fingers can still use a trackpad, go to duckweb, faculty menu, class schedule information, select a term, then Fall 2013, then your course, then look at the very bottom for the new time and place.

Update: Julliane Parker has the interview in the ODE with Professor Simmons, who is a total mensch about the entire incident, and does the UO faculty and his profession proud:

“I have confidence that the reaction of the university given what has happened will be proportional,” Simmons said. “It will consider these young people and their futures and will also, I hope, suggest to them that they need to rethink behavior like that.” …

 “People were cheering when snow was thrown into my car,” Simmons said. “I don’t think people do that except under some sort of psychological mechanism that comes with people feeling they have permission because other people are doing it, and to act in a way they maybe wouldn’t act individually.”

Duck football Snowpocalypse. My guess is this all started when some Duck Strategic Communications sub-director flack decided to exploit the snow for PR, by unleashing the football players from their indentured servitude in the new $140M “Hatfield-Downing Football Operations Center” for a few moments of fun. Or was it just coincidence that the cameras were rolling, and it was heavily hyped in the national press?

Screen Shot 2013-12-07 at 11.41.36 PM

Before long, the Duck athletes were using their twitter feeds – apparently closely monitored by their athletics overseers – to challenge regular UO students to a fun snowball fight. Just the sort of camaraderie that might reestablish some connection between UO athletics and the students who subsidize the salaries of Matt Helfrich and Rob Mullens? I’ve heard worse PR ideas – like “we are the University of Nike” – but this one went bad even more quickly:

Now UO’s Dean of Students Paul Shang, has had to issue an apology:

Paul Shang, University of Oregon dean of students, issued the following statement regarding a Dec. 6 incident on campus:

The University of Oregon Police Department is investigating an incident, captured on video, in which a passing vehicle was the target of snowballs thrown by young people in an area on the UO campus. Police hope to determine the identities of those who were throwing snowballs, whether they are UO students and whether their actions constitute a criminal act.

A criminal act? Sure, though what kid hasn’t done worse? The professor seems to handle it exactly right, considering the provocation and intimidation. He gets out of his car, and tries to get them to talk. Presumably so he can explain to them what it means to be a bully and a jerk. And the Oregonian is now reporting it was Art History Professor Sherwin Simmons:

“It was a snowball fight,” Simmons, who does not plan to press charges, told Canzano. “The students shouldn’t involve people who aren’t part of it, but this is not high crimes, not an assault, not even a misdemeanor. No one should be charged. That would be nuts.”

UO email alert, December 2013:

Crews are working diligently to reopen campus for regular operations on Monday morning; please check the UO Alerts blog for updates.

Due to extreme cold conditions forecast for the next 24 to 48 hours, students and others are urged to dress appropriately and limit their exposure to the cold. Frost bite can occur in less than 30 minutes, and hypothermia can lead to disorientation and death.

But show up for that Monday 8AM final! Update: Don’t show up – the administration has cancelled all 8AM Monday exams. Official panic alert here.

As French resistance fighter and mountaineer Maurice Herzog wrote on his return from the first ascent of Annapurna in June 1950, where he lost his fingers and toes to frostbite, “There are other Annapurnas in the lives of men”:

“Recalcitrant” College of Ed faculty hold Town Hall on Shelton’s metrics and Dean’s response

An excerpt from http://newsletter.uauoregon.org/budget-cuts-reorganization-and-frustration-in-coe/

The College of Education (COE) has recently been presented with relatively significant budget cut targets by the Provost’s office.  The COE faculty are eager to find ways to maintain the excellence of our programs while also achieving the prescribed fiscal goals.  Unfortunately, we are not being given the information that would make such collaborative problem solving possible.  Frustration levels are high.

In response to this situation, UA stewards in COE recently hosted a meeting of college faculty with UA Executive Director David Cecil.  25 faculty attended, and 28 others sent regrets along with lists of their concerns.  The concerns expressed included:

  • The metrics being used by the Provost’s office to determine alleged College and Department inefficiencies have not been disclosed.
  • The metrics being used to determine individual departmental and program budget cut targets, have also not been disclosed.
  • When these concerns about ambiguity were expressed to VP Brad Shelton in a recent faculty meeting, he framed them as expressions of faculty recalcitrance.  Many faculty experienced this as patronizing and insulting.

Responses from all levels of administration seem to be lacking. …

CAS Deans Marcus, Sadofsky & Blonigen invite you to the Faculty Club

Also LCB Dean Sarah Nutter will be there on Wed night.

What a great idea:

To:                         CAS Faculty

From:                    Andrew Marcus

Re:                         CAS nights at the Faculty Club: Thursday, February 22 & Thursday, March 1

The CAS Deans will be joining the Faculty Club on two upcoming nights for conversation and socializing:

Thursday, February 22nd from 5:00 – 6:30 pm: Andrew Marcus and Hal Sadofsky

Thursday, March 1st from 5:00 – 6:30 pm: Bruce Blonigen

The Faculty Club operates weekly in the Marché space at the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art. I hope you will be able to drop by and visit with us.

This CAS night at the Faculty Club is a joint effort between the University Senate and the CAS Dean’s Office. Chris Sinclair and Bill Harbaugh (Senate President and Vice President) are looking for ways to encourage more faculty to run or volunteer for positions on the Senate or any of the Senate’s 30+ committees. Bruce and I are always interested in talking with you about college matters, and we also want our faculty to seek out ways to provide service to the university. Our hope is that this forum will allow you to do both in a relaxed and informal setting.

The University Senate is scheduling similar events this term for as many of the colleges and schools as possible as it prepares for elections and the selection of committees that will occur during Spring Term. In addition, the Senate has arranged for Provost Jayanth Banavar to be the featured guest at a Faculty Club drop-in event on Wednesday, February 28th and for President Mike Schill to appear on Thursday, March 15th. You are certainly invited to attend on those nights as well.

We hope to see you on an upcoming Thursday.


W. Andrew Marcus, Tykeson Dean for Arts and Sciences, cas.uoregon.edu

Are feds questioning UO Foundation head Paul Weinhold over IAAF “side deals”?

2/20/2018: Austin Meek  has the latest on the Lananna and Tracktown in the RG here. No word yet on whether the feds are also interviewing the UO Foundation CEO Paul Weinhold, who also played a key role in the IAAF bidding, as reported by Diane Dietz in the RegisterGuard back in 2014:

The foundation’s financial guarantee to the IAAF set no upper limit on what the foundation would have been liable for if the Eugene event had turned into a money loser. …

Weinhold said the UO Foundation faced minimal risk in agreeing to cover meet losses because TrackTown USA’s budget was thoroughly vetted and reliable; Kitzhaber favored the legislation that would have provided millions in state support; and the foundation had confidential side deals meant to hold the foundation harmless, Weinhold said in the interview. Weinhold declined to disclose any specifics of those side deals.

“We do not believe we had any exposure, and we had agreements in place that eliminated our exposure. That should be enough for you,” he said. …

Side deals?

2/19/2018: Feds question Duck coach & Tracktown head Vin Lananna over 2021 IAAF Championships

Austin Meek in the RG:

USA Track & Field says it has placed Vin Lananna on temporary administrative leave after learning that Lananna and Eugene-based TrackTown USA were contacted “months ago” by federal authorities investigating corruption in the sport. …

No word yet on how the UO administration and the Foundation will handle this.

2/14/2018: Eugene loses three NCAA championship meets over Tracktown’s 2021 IAAF extravaganza

This is getting interesting. I wonder what the truth is. The Oregonian:

By closing its iconic track stadium for all of 2019, Oregon would void a three-year contract with the NCAA to host the NCAA Outdoor Championships in 2019, 2020 and 2021.

Because the Hayward Field tart-up for the 2021 IAAF meet will take it out of commission. Or because the NCAA doesn’t want to go down with Lananna?

In any case this certainly cuts into the rationale for Governor Kate Brown’s endorsement of $40M in public subsidies for the IAAF.

2/8/2018: USA Track and Field strips Duck coach Vin Lananna of his powers, as millions in public money change hands over 2021 IAAF championships

Before the legislature passed SB 270 and created the UO Board of Trustees, the Oregon Secretary of State’s Audit Division had authority for investigating this sort of sleaze. Now it’s all up to UO’s Internal Auditor Trisha Burnett (whose audits are apparently exempt from public records requests) – and of course the FBI, federal prosecutors, the IRS, the French government, and USA Track and Field.

And the Oregonian’s Jeff Manning, who has a stunning report here:

Vin Lananna’s rapid rise to the pinnacle of U.S. track and field has been stalled by a divisive fight on the sport’s national governing board over his business interests.

Less than a year after being elected president of USA Track & Field, Lananna was quietly stripped of some of his authority. The board specifically cited his leadership of several companies and nonprofits – including Eugene-based TrackTown USA — that routinely bid on contracts to host and organize track meets.

The board passed a two-page resolution in October that, among other things, forces the former University of Oregon track and field coach to recuse himself from any matter that involves his companies or their competitors.

Millions of dollars have changed hands between the governing body and Lananna’s numerous outside interests. Most recently, the association pledged $6 million to Oregon 21, the organizing committee of the 2021 track and field world championships in Eugene.

“Vin has been engaged in complete conflict of interest,” said Steve Miller, the track and field association’s chair. “The outcome of the vote is that he has to recuse himself from the vast majority of what he does as president of USATF. Your effectiveness as leader is greatly diminished when you can’t be in the room.” …

Will Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum follow up on this?

Meanwhile Lananna is still on the UO payroll, at 0.69 FTE:

UO’s 100 most excellent faculty, from Google Scholar

https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_org&hl=en&org=822421448073898796 ¹, ², ³


1: Some of these faculty are no longer at UO and many UO faculty have not yet claimed their pubs on Google (which is very easy to do).

2: This is a ridiculous way to measure “Research Excellence”, whatever that is. Of course if we added h-indexes, impact-factors, and grants llike Academic Analytics does, then these metrics would appear to be more credible – but would they be any more useful for deciding which department should get more faculty lines?

Rank of Excellence Name Citations Title/Afilliation
#1 David M Strom 150,153 Prof of Physics, UO
#2 Paul Slovic 147,893 Decision Research and UO
#3 Eric Torrence 136,713 UO
#4 Michael I. Posner 124,364 Prof Emeritus of psychology UO
#5 Mark Johnson 93,148 Philip H. Knight Prof of Liberal Arts and Sciences, UO
#6 Raymond Frey 82,964 Department of Physics, UO
#7 William H Starbuck 44,971 UO
#8 David A. McCormick 38,787 Prof, UO; Prof Emeritus, Yale University
#9 John Postlethwait 28,135 Prof of Biology, UO
#10 Alan D. Meyer 22,406 Prof of Management, UO
#11 Patrick J. Bartlein 21,006 Prof of Geography, UO
#12 Helen Neville 19,618 Prof, Psychology and Neuroscience, UO
#13 cq doe 18,471 Univ Oregon
#14 Dipongkar Talukder 17,694 Postdoctoral Research Scholar, UO
#15 Russell J. Donnelly 17,344 UO
#16 Linda Price 17,303 Prof of Marketing, UO
#17 Joan Acker 17,134 Sociology, UO
#18 John Bellamy Foster 16,757 Prof of Sociology, UO
#19 Jon Erlandson 15,562 Prof of Anthropology, Executive Director of the Museum of Natural & Cultural Historty …
#20 Lynn Kahle 15,535 Prof of Marketing, UO
#21 Gregory John Retallack 15,531 UO
#22 Judith H. Hibbard 14,650 Prof Emerita at the UO
#23 Sanjay Srivastava 14,642 Associate Prof of Psychology, UO
#24 Nicholas Allen 14,469 UO
#25 Brendan Bohannan 13,609 Prof of Environmental Studies and Biology, UO
#26 Greg Bothun 13,244 UO
#27 David O. Conover 12,695 UO
#28 Kraimer, Maria 12,670 UO
#29 Shannon Boettcher 12,148 Assoc. Prof. Chemistry, UO
#30 Scott Seibert 11,663 UO
#31 Jennifer Freyd 11,493 UO
#32 Michael G. Raymer 11,428 Prof of Physics, Department of Physics and Oregon Center for Optics, University of …
#33 James E. Hutchison 10,988 Lokey-Harrington Chair in Chemistry, UO
#34 Albert O. Edwards, MD, PhD 10,621 Oregon Retina, Oregon Health Sciences University, UO, Mayo Clinic …
#35 Bruce Bowerman 10,586 Institute of Molecular Biology, UO
#36 Douglas Hintzman 10,316 Emeritus Prof of Psychology, UO
#37 ulrich mayr 10,219 UO
#38 William Cresko 9,899 UO
#39 Bruce Blonigen 9,526 UO
#40 Jessica L. Green 9,371 UO
#41 Phil Fisher 9,308 UO
#42 Michael M. Haley 9,283 Richard M. & Patricia H. Noyes Prof of Chemistry, UO
#43 Christopher Minson 9,064 Prof of Human Physiology, UO
#44 T. Bettina Cornwell 9,032 Prof of Marketing, UO
#45 George W Evans 8,848 UO
#46 Gerard Saucier 8,390 Prof of Psychology, UO
#47 Louis Moses 8,232 Department of Psychology, UO
#48 Craig M. Young 8,143 Prof of Biology, UO
#49 Alice Barkan 8,123 UO
#50 Reza Rejaie 8,026 Prof of Computer and Information Science, UO
#51 Andrew Karduna 7,985 UO
#52 alan l shanks 7,793 UO
#53 Patrick C. Phillips 7,616 Prof of Biology, Institute for Ecology and Evolution, UO
#54 David C. Johnson 7,526 Prof of Chemistry, UO
#55 John R Halliwill, PhD 7,426 Department of Human Physiology, UO
#56 John Conery 7,380 Prof of Biology, UO
#57 Richard York 7,344 Prof of Sociology and Environmental Studies, UO
#58 Scott Bridgham 7,341 Prof of Biology and Environmental Studies, UO
#59 Nash Unsworth 7,336 UO
#60 Michael V. Russo 7,278 Lundquist Prof of Sustainable Management, UO
#61 Stephen Fickas 7,171 Prof of Computer and Information Science UO
#62 Trudy Ann Cameron 7,020 RF Mikesell Prof of Environmental and Resource Economics, UO
#63 Paul J. Wallace 6,853 UO
#64 Robert M. O’Brien 6,685 Prof of Sociology, UO
#65 Allen D. Malony 6,588 UO
#66 Eric A. Johnson 6,567 Associate Prof, Inst. of Molecular Biology, UO. Founder, SNPsaurus
#67 Jean Stockard 6,539 UO
#68 Ronald B. Mitchell 6,444 Prof of Political Science, UO
#69 Gordon C. Nagayama Hall 6,314 UO
#70 Leslie Leve 6,137 UO
#71 Marjorie Taylor 5,860 UO
#72 Hailin Wang 5,729 Prof, Department of Physics, UO, Eugene, Oregon, USA
#73 David Krinsley 5,614 Courtesy Prof of Earth Sciences, UO
#74 Ilya Bindeman 5,543 Prof of Geology, U of Oregon
#75 William T Harbaugh 5,457 Prof of Economics, UO
#76 Jennifer H. Pfeifer 5,456 Associate Prof, UO
#77 Yuan Xu 5,446 Prof of Mathematics, UO
#78 SJ van Enk 5,405 UO
#79 Karen Guillemin 5,343 Prof of Biology, UO
#80 Li-Shan Chou 5,294 UO
#81 Kim Sheehan 5,294 UO
#82 Ray Weldon 5,154 Prof of Geology, UO
#83 CJ Pascoe 5,082 Associate Prof of Sociology, UO
#84 Dietrich Belitz 4,982 UO
#85 Josh Roering 4,860 Prof, Department of Earth Sciences, UO
#86 Scott DeLancey 4,849 UO
#87 Sara D. Hodges 4,683 UO
#88 George von Dassow 4,658 UO
#89 Holly Arrow 4,554 Prof of Psychology, UO
#90 Douglas R. Toomey 4,448 UO
#91 Joe Stone 4,377 Prof of economics UO
#92 Daniel G. Gavin 4,328 Associate Prof, Department of Geography, UO
#93 Ken Prehoda 4,322 Prof of Chemistry, UO
#94 Jeremy Piger 4,184 Prof of Economics, UO
#95 Michael Pluth 4,126 Associate Prof, UO
#96 Victoria DeRose 4,038 Prof of Chemistry and Biochemistry, UO
#97 Elizabeth Stormshak 4,005 Prof, Counseling Psychology, UO
#98 Lynn Stephen 3,990 UO
#99 Sameer Shende 3,943 Director, Performance Research Laboratory, UO and President, ParaTools …
#100 Kryn Stankunas 3,898
Associate Prof of Biology, Institute of Molecular Biology, UO

3: Duck basketball coach Dana Altman’s RPI rank has now dropped to #89, after UO gave him a contract amendment in June that raised his buyout cost to $14M.

UO Board Trustee Rudy Chapa steps down


At-large positions on the governing board are volunteer posts with nominees selected by the governor. The governor will submit her choice to the Oregon Senate, which in turn votes on whether to confirm nominees.

Those interested in applying should contact University Secretary Angela Wilhelms, who can provide more detail on executive appointment processes and deadlines. She can be reached at wilhelms@uoregon.edu or 541-346-5561.

Perhaps Governor Brown will use this opportunity to appoint someone to the Board who knows something about higher education.

Shocking emails reveal Pres Schill wrote NYT op-ed without help from overpaid PR flacks

No one who has ever dealt with a journal editor or reviewers will be surprised by any of this. At least they didn’t ask Schill to cite their own work, to pump up their Academic Analytics metrics.

Eugene Weekly reporter Corrine Boyer has obtained the public records on the back and forth between President Michael Schill and the NYT editors, over the op-ed he wrote after whatever happened at his October 17 State of the University that sort of didn’t happen. Story and links here.

President Schill seems to have written it all without help from UO’s army of PR flacks. This is unusual. Dave Frohnmayer had a speech-writer on staff. Mike Gottfredson paid a rumored $30K to a consultant for advice on how to talk to his own faculty at Senate meetings. And Bob Berdahl would have been well advised to have paid someone to edit his comments before he posted them on this blog. (Hi Bob!)

The EW story has a fair amount on the NYT editors’ efforts to influence Schill’s interpretation of events. It was Ms Shutler who pushed Schill to compare our students to fascists:

Full disclosure: I’ve never had an editor write crap like that to me, but if one did I’d probably submit a revision along the requested lines too. A pub’s a pub.

Meanwhile, Ms Shutler’s copy editor is either extremely earnest, or has a wicked sense of humor and is on to her fascist obsession. I’m going to go with the latter:


Faculty has wasted $600K on unused metrics data that purport to measure and incentivise excellence in Johnson Hall administrators

Or do I have this backwards? Come to the March 16 Town-Hall meeting to find out:

Dear Colleagues,

I have now been here for several months and I’ve seen some tremendous activity and enthusiasm among members of the faculty. I am continually impressed with the terrific work underway from a variety of disciplines.

The University of Oregon has an institutional mission of excellence—in teaching, in research and scholarship, and in service. Our university is able to celebrate its strengths in a large variety of academic disciplines including the liberal and fine arts, the physical and social sciences, and the professional programs because of the outstanding contributions from members of our tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty. To aid in our mission, we are creating new systems and tools, such as a new resource allocation system and the Institutional Hiring Plan for the recruitment of tenure-track faculty members. But how should we measure excellence? How should we decide which areas to target for faculty recruitment? How should we know whether we are continuously improving?

At the UO, we are in the process of developing several types of metrics to help address these questions.

I know that there are a lot of questions about what this means, and I have heard concerns that the metrics will be used inappropriately for things such as “ranking” faculty members or departments. I have also heard rumors that we will be using metrics to establish some sort of threshold at which faculty members could be “cut” if they do not meet that threshold. I want to help allay some concerns and answer some questions. As a former dean and faculty member myself, I understand how questions and even some anxiety can arise when metrics are introduced into a conversation.

Before my arrival, the UO had established a work group of faculty and staff members to make recommendations on metrics. The members committed a great deal of time and insight into this process, and I’m grateful for their work.

It is also important that we learn lessons from other institutions which have employed—or tried to employ—metrics. Without going into a lot of detail, please be aware that I am committed to studying what has worked and what hasn’t worked at other universities. This not only makes sense but is the responsible thing to do.

It is now important to move forward in our discussion. I am sure not all of your questions will be answered below, but I hope it provides some important context. If you have additional questions, do not hesitate to reach out to my office at provost@uoregon.edu

We have organized our thinking around metrics in two overarching areas—operational and mission. Operational metrics objectively measure student demand and the capacity to accommodate this demand with existing instructors. This will provide initial information on capacity and need. Mission metrics help us understand how well we are collectively contributing to the university’s mission. Are we serving our students? Are we contributing to our professional fields? Are we expanding knowledge? They represent ways to understand our impact, hold ourselves accountable, and assist with allocating resources.

Mission metrics can be disaggregated into three components: undergraduate education, graduate education, and research. Some of these will look at activity and performance specific to the UO (e.g., time to degree, general participation in first-year programs) and others will look at discipline-specific information as articulated by schools and colleges (e.g., citations, publications, awards).

The process of defining local-level mission metrics must start with local units, where the disciplinary experts reside. The provost’s office will be coordinating this process with assistance from the deans of the schools and colleges. I appreciate the work being done within individual departments, schools, and colleges to develop these latter metrics. You, not I, know how best to assess quality in your area: how the College of Design assesses performance will vary from the natural sciences or law, and so forth.

We have the operational metrics in place and are currently in the process of defining the local mission metrics with input from the units. When developed, the metrics will help promote and measure excellence. A thoughtful, data-driven approach to managing investments is critical, especially in a time of constrained resources. There are terrific programs here at the UO, but there are also—as in any massive organization—pockets that may not be of the highest quality. Being able to identify both is critical for strong and effective management. It is imperative that we use not just good data but the right data to inform these decisions.

However, we of course must exercise caution in focusing singularly on certain indicators (and the movement thereof) without keeping in mind the larger reasons for which they were created. Typically, a unit that performs well across a range of metrics is likely to be excellent. But I recognize and appreciate there are a number of factors that go into that assessment, and thus I do not intend to have a prescribed set of “if-then” outcomes simply based on information gathered from metrics. While the conversation about metrics continues to unfold, I can emphatically state that these metrics cannot be used for individual personnel decisions unless they are added to the unit-level promotion and tenure and merit raise policies through the shared governance process established by the United Academics collective bargaining agreement.

As we continue our work on the development of these metrics, we welcome your advice and input. The goal is to have a mechanism for the transparent allocation of resources to maximally enhance the excellence of our university.

This is a new approach, and one that is likely to raise questions. I encourage you to share your thoughts, ideas, or questions with my office. You are also invited to an open town hall–style meeting on Friday, March 16, from 11:00 a.m. to noon in 156 Straub Hall. This town hall will be a two-way discussion on the purpose, value, and use of metrics as well as other topics, including the new academic allocation system, the Institutional Hiring Plan, and whatever else is on your mind.

Please, feel free to contact my office with any questions you may have. I look forward to seeing you at the forum.

Best Regards,

Jayanth Banavar

Provost and Senior Vice President