And keep us in the AAU. Rumor down at the faculty club is that this gift came just in the nick of time for the annual AAU meeting. (Update: Noah McGraw has more in the Emerald here.) President Schill in the Oregonian:
Michael H. Schill:
This week I had the pleasure of announcing that two extraordinary members of our university family, Phil and Penny Knight, made a jaw-dropping $500 million gift to the University of Oregon.
Their amazing generosity will launch the Phil and Penny Knight Campus for Accelerating Scientific Impact, a 10-year, $1 billion quantum leap forward in the way Oregon approaches scientific research.
Both the amount of money and the vision for the Knight Campus are staggering. The first questions from everyone I talk to are “What is it?” and “What kinds of discoveries will it make?”
The beauty of scientific research is that we cannot predict the discoveries that may be revealed or the impacts those discoveries will generate. The possibilities are limitless. As my colleague, President Joe Robertson of Oregon Health & Science University, said, “Science by its very nature is unpredictable, which is what makes it so exciting.”
But there is much we do know.
The Knight Campus is a radical idea, but it’s built on the university’s well-established history of interdisciplinary collaboration. The vision came directly from the faculty and will focus on accelerating the cycle of inquiry, discovery, innovation and impact.
The Knight Campus will allow us to recruit the world’s best researchers to Oregon — engineers, data scientists, robotics experts, entrepreneurs and clinicians — and to pair them with our exceptional faculty. Scientific discoveries will be more quickly refined, tested — leaping traditional hurdles — to become life-changing medicines, products or solutions. When fully implemented, it will comprise three 70,000-square-foot buildings outfitted with labs, prototyping facilities and clinical space.
The vision came directly from the faculty and will focus on accelerating the cycle of inquiry, discovery, innovation and impact.
The impact of this unprecedented gift will ripple far beyond the sciences and the campus in Eugene. This research environment will offer new collaborative opportunities with the university’s public research counterparts of OHSU, Oregon State University, and Portland State University.
The Knight Campus also will help Oregon enhance and expand its innovation economy. When fully operational, the Knight Campus will drive nearly $80 million in annual economic activity statewide and support more than 750 jobs. It will enhance the state’s workforce, incubate new Oregon-based companies and train a new generation of scientific entrepreneurs.
Its broad economic benefit and possibility for collaboration are just some of many reasons we want to partner with the State of Oregon. During the 2017 legislative session, the university will seek an investment of $100 million in bonds to support the Knight Campus. The investment would be immediately deployed to construct one of the three research facilities, allowing the UO to drive other funds into endowing faculty positions and ensuring those professors have the resources needed to research, discover and produce new innovations that can be brought to market and help change the world.
While this project does not reduce the need for more classroom space for students, the public investment would be matched ten-to-one by private philanthropy — an exceptional public-private partnership and a solid investment in our state’s prosperity. We fully intend that this structure will ensure that the Knight Campus remains financially sustainable without drawing from other campus resources or student tuition.
This monumental act of philanthropy provides a ray of hope to public universities throughout the nation that, according to a recent speech by AAU president Mary Sue Coleman, are at “a tipping point.” The Knights’ gift is a perfect example of how a pub- lic university — even in a state that has struggled to invest in higher education — can still hope to achieve eminence in the 21st century.
This extraordinary gift was given out of the Knight’s deep love for our university and our state. It was given out of an abiding belief that with the right resources, the right strategy, and the right leadership, the University of Oregon can achieve a level of excellence and create a type of scientific innovation that had previously been out of reach. We are profoundly grateful to Phil and Penny.
This is a defining moment for the UO and the state of Oregon, one that will push the bounds of discovery and the limits of our imagination. We are eager to seize this moment — to partner with the state, public universities, industry, alumni, donors and the community — to make our world a better place. The possibilities are limitless.
Michael H. Schill is president of the University of Oregon and a professor of law.
Probably a coincidence in terms of timing.
However, the major metric that the UO is below is in terms of graduate student participation in a Research University and the Knight Campus should improve that quite a bit. That, I think, is the real impact.
I suspect that the timing of the gift vis a vis AAU was no coincidence. I’ve heard that UO has been on probation and time was running out. The AAU was told to hold its fire until a major, major gift came in.
If the gift keeps UO in the AAU, that is a huge accomplishment. It would have been a pity had it been too late. And, let’s hope it is both enough and in time to do the trick.
I see UO at a fork in the road. Either it becomes a major AAU worthy player again. Or it goes off into the sunset as second fiddle to OSU. I hope the former.
I’m pretty sure that UO is not “on probation” with the AAU. I think it was public knowledge when Nebraska (the first school kicked out of the AAU) was “on probation” with the AAU, and nothing has been said about UO. I am also pretty sure that an extra $500 million probably does help Oregon’s status with the AAU.
Pretty sure that the UO was never *officially* on probation. For a good one page summary of the AAU
membership metrics go here
https://coas.missouri.edu/aau
In the case of the UO we are deficient in
Phase I – first bullet
Phase 2 – first two bullets for sure, and a little on bullet 3
To a layperson like myself this is not a sexy project. I do not deny that it will have a large impact on the university. However, I am surprised they were able to bring home the bacon.
An engineering or applied science school (whether it fit the university or not) probably would have generated more interest from donors and the state. You are very lucky.
I don’t see the fine print. Does it require a $500 million match? Phil is not known for paying retail for his little projects.
$100 million in bonds? Aren’t we at the limit?
Unlike the OHSU deal, no match is required. Schill asking the legislature for $100M in bonds. But apparently Knight’s gift is not contingent on that. There’s the hope we can get another $500M for the full build out, but, again, my understanding is that no match is required.
The Daily Emerald has made a public records request for the gift letter, so all this should be public soon: http://publicrecords.uoregon.edu/content/agreement-1
UOmatters is correct, no Match is required but the UO is wisely using this as a lever arm for further
investment.
I think it would have been used better at OSU. Given the track record here this is a questionable investment.
But I guess it at least makes up for the increase in admin salary burden.
this is absurd
this is a catalytic investment in the future and potential for change. Now the UO could still blow that but it still makes the investment worthwhile.
You don’t even specify what the track record is, I mean really, on the real track, the UO is much better …
Just catching up on this after being out of the country for some time and don’t want to look a gift horse in the mouth, but isn’t anyone concerned about what seems to be a major change of direction for UO research? Our tradition has been one of emphasizing basic rather than applied science; this gift at least on the surface appears to force a move in the other direction. Like I said, I’m just getting up to speed on this, so forgive me if these questions have been answered, but can anyone enlighten me about
1. What specific areas of inquiry will be emphasized?
2. Will our hiring focus shift further toward moneymaking potential (i.e. patent generation, spin-off possibilities, market considerations) rather than the pure pursuit of knowledge?
3. Will this new emphasis spur more and deeper relationships with private industry, with their attendant ethical issues?
Perhaps some of these questions sound naive or old-fashioned. But this gift gets to the heart of what university research is really about, and why it is different from industrial research. I hope others share my concerns, and that many voices are heard in the planning process for implementing Mr. Knight’s generous gift.
Briefly
1) applied biosciene/biomedical stuff as well as computational and big data (possible with medical applications) are the initial areas; basic science will come next
2. The jaded UOmatters crowd believes this is about moneymaking, but its not, its about cutting edge resource that can lead to important applications for the real world, and this is what a research University should do. This distinction between basic science
and applied science is no longer relevant unless you want to remain living in the past.
3. It would certainly be good if UO had a better relationship with Intel, for one. Yes spin offs from
cutting edge research will help.
To me the concern is simple:
Let’s preserve the University (and its curriulum) of
the past because that has real value vs – oh this is just a fad that we should not invest further in …
Universities have to evolve, by in large they do not and thus are losing relevance (yes I know that you and
most of other readers here do NOT believe this).
The university’s key function is to serve the state and its people.
Some academics think the key function of a public research university is to serve humanity by generating knowledge. They are the only ones that see it this way.
The state (and donor community) won’t fund a research institution if it doesn’t advance the state’s economy and workforce, period.
since the UO is not technically a member of the State system anymore and the state contribution to the UO G&E budget is minimal, I would argue that this objection is again, in the legacy, and not relevant to the actual real world.
It’s vacuously true that UO is no longer a member of the state system because there is no longer an Oregon University System. But it’s still a public institution with a responsibility to serve the public, regardless of the regrettably scant financial commitment by the legislature. On the other hand, fulfilling its public mission doesn’t necessarily mean that UO should go the vo-tech route.
there is nothing vo-tech about this vision. The fact
that vo-tech seems to incredibly offend the ivory tower
view of liberal arts is part of the reason there is an unnecessary schism on this campus.
Research that helps the world better deal with real world problems is not vo-tech at all, rather it makes
University research more relevant to Joe 6-pack …
The state? The state of Oregon supplies 5% of the University’s budget.
The donor community? Clearly, they’ve already shown that they *do* care about faculty generating knowledge (Knight, Boyle, Ballmer, …)
The state pays 12% of UO’s “education and general” expenses (i.e. expenses for teaching, research, buildings, police, administration) plus more in the form of direct grants to individual students for their tuition payments to UO.
The 5% number is a lowball figure frequently used by those seeking to minimize the extent of the state’s contribution to UO. It uses all UO expenditures as the base – e.g. athletic expenditures, student housing, parking, etc.
Good point. I shouldn’t quote the 5% number.
but nonetheless 12% remains minimal and quite
embarrassing for a “State School”. The UO is located
in Oregon, but that’s about it.
Sure we are supposed to benefit the State, and we do
in various measurable ways, but that doesn’t preclude the State from a proper investment – that only multiplies …
The recent Boyle gift of $10 million for zebrafish work was in the spirit of supporting some of the best known basic science research to come from UO.
Those are good questions. I hope that the emphasis will be on letting basic research reach its full potential. Perhaps the most important recent advance in biotechnology, genome editing, came from very basic research on bacteria. But the implications of that basic research were quickly developed because the universities involved (Berkeley and MIT) have researchers with skills all along the chain of moving those basic discoveries into use. I think Oregon can join this elite group by also having these skills, but it needs to retain the value it places on the generation of these ideas in basic research.