ALUMNI TALKBACK

What does the president mean when he says, "that the continued tension on campus is too distracting to the advancement of our university." What issues are facing the university?

Why can't Case retain leadership?

I am happy to see an alumni blog. =)

"Regarding the issue of retaining leadership," I don't think anyone at Case has much to say about that. How many presidents, provosts, deans, etc., are we going to go through? Perhaps the problem is institutional. Peter B. Lewis should be the new president of the university.

And, this is unrelated, but please update your web site to reflect that Hal Lebovitz, while a great writer, passed away quite some time ago.

http://www.case.edu/alumni/notable/sports.html has now been updated to reflect Hal Lebovitz's passing. Thank you for the reminder.

Could someone explain, how an institution with the foundation and alumni support, along with the research funding traditions like Case could end up cutting "$17.2 million dollars from this year's budget to meet this requirement, and we will indeed meet our operating budget for FY06. But as the Vision Investment Plan has continued, we will still have an approximately $40 million recurring deficit this year. We must work to bring the University back to a balanced budget in 2007 or Case will face a $40 million deficit in its total budget not only next year, but into the future, a shortfall that would be irresponsible to impose on the institution. Given that we must meet our commitments to the many great faculty we have recruited and retained, this approximately 5% budget reduction is in fact a major challenge that will require everyone's input on our priorities."

How did this happen and was no one minding the store while the University dug this hole for itself? It seems that the University needs a complete overhaul in its accounting and finance practices. The failure in leadership begins with the President, but I hope the accountability does not end with his resignation.

I agree not only with the prior poster, but am concerned about the leadership retention issue. The presidency seems to have taken on the aspects of a revolving door in recent years. How much of this budget crisis is the result of the presidential selection process which in retrospect has led to poor leadership. Why are the Trustees not being held accountable for this mess?

It was the plan of the university to run at a deficit for several years as the Vision Investment Plan was operating. The estimated income (donations, research funding, etc.) was grossly over estimated though.

Given the financial crisis at the University, I'm curious how likely is it that the projects associated with the Vision Investment Plan and the Campus Master Plan, which we have heard about for sometime, will actually be accomplished. Are we to expect a "firesale" of Case properties in University Circle now? How secure is the endowment now?

I'd like to add to the other poster's remarks with the following, taken off of the University's News Center site. This is from August 25, 2005. "In fiscal year 2004-2005, the university’s cash donations overall increased to more than $87 million, up from $69 million last year. This year cash gifts from alumni increased more than 100 percent, up from $12.7 million in 2003-2004 to more than $29 million in 2004-2005." Where did all the money go?

While trying to find additional information about the President's resignation and the particulars of the Vision Investment Plan, I found this Case website--it explains the viewpoint of the faculty alarmed with the Investment Plan the financial well-being of the University.
http://usg.case.edu/about/CASLetter.pdf
In addition, the report notes that "the University has also drawn $100 million on a line-of-credit" and that "Case CFO & C00 Hossein Sadid reported that the University cannot prudently further draw on working capital. This because a balance of $65 million to $75 million is required to ensure smooth cash flow. While we do not know what the current balance is, it is presumably far below the $165 million reported to the budget committee in April 2004." Okay, so how bad truly is this situation? I assume that drawing on a $100 million line of credit is not necessarily a good thing. What now?

The money was spent as planned, but look at this graphic from the Plain Dealer and you will see that the estimate of revenues was way off.

Another issue is that students are paying the price for this. Has anyone looked at the current tuition rates? They're absolutely ridiculous. Even someone with $1 million in the bank would have to think twice about sending their kid to Case when tuition, room and board exceed $40,000 PER YEAR before you even start paying for books or incidental expenses. And imagine working your way through school at those rates! That's an awful lot of shifts waiting tables.

And let's face it, you end up with a degree from a school that most people outside Cleveland have never heard of.

Some might be interested in the conversation on this issue that is taking place at forum.case.edu

As an alumnus and former staff member at Case (or is it CWRU??), it seems to me that the main problem facing this institution is its complete inability to function as a University. Case is simply a collection of independent schools (medical, law, business, arts and sciences, etc...) that are concerned only about their selfish needs and not the best interests of the University as a whole. Then there's the whole Case Institute of Technology/Western Reserve dichotomy. This culture MUST change if Case is to compete in the big leagues.

A second issue (and this is at least beginning to change) is the fact that non-alumni trustees have been running this place for far too long. Before Frank Linsalata '63 took over as president of the Board, non-alumni power brokers in Cleveland ran the University. These people did not have that personal connection (read: affection) for the place that alumni have. Alumni need to assert themselves!

While I agree about students paying the price for this disaster, skyrocketing tuition rates are not just a CWRU problem--its a nation-wide trend. When was the last time you heard of a Division I research university cutting back on tuition?
I think we underestimate the reputation of Case beyond northeast Ohio--in certain fields it does have a national and international reputation--the admin though I think has failed to capitalize on that knowledge.
An earlier poster linked a message to graphics from the Plain Dealer clearly demonstrating how far off the estimates were for the vaunted Vision Investment Plan. The graphics were rather startling--how could they have been that far off?
I also agree with the last poster regarding the culture at Case and the trustee situation. More alumni need to be included in the board or at least need to have a more vocal voice. The silo mentality of the colleges/schools along with the various alumni associations must come to an end if the University hopes to survive this crisis.

The CWRU Board of Trustees has 4 Officers, 50 Trustees, and 25 Honorary Trustees. Cleveland State University has 9 voting trustees, a Secretary, 2 faculty reps and 2 student reps. The Ohio State University has 14 trustess, 2 of which are students.

Are so many trustees needed at CWRU? Can a body this large be effective? Were they all asleep at the switch the last couple years? Is it possible to determine whether anyone on the Board should take some responsibility for the current situation?

I agree with the last commentator and have also looked at all the web sites posted previously by others. As an alum of CWRU and donor, I'm rather upset and appalled by the current situation. When the first statements were made well over two years ago about the Vision Investment Plan, I thought the figures being presented were rather inflated and overly optimistic--now we know they were for sure. So now what is to be done about this crisis that the President and the Trustees have walked the University into? Does the University scuttle the SAGES program? Do we put the expansion of student housing on hold? How do we fix this problem without sacrificing the very foundation of what CWRU stands for--quality education? By the way, does this mean we can stop calling the University "Case" and return to the more meaningful "CWRU" label along with abandoning the Gorgonian knot design-although, given the financial crisis that might be rather appropriate.

I agree with the last couple of posters--this mess seems involve the larger issue of accountability, meaning not only the President, but also the Trustees. Why is nothing be done to resolve that issue? I am an alum and donor to the University--before I give any more to the University I want some reassurances that this crisis is solvable and that such a solution does not involve a "fire-sale" of University properties and investments or the firing of faculty/staff. Maybe the Trustees, as an act of contrition for overseeing the enactment of this disaster, should collectively pay off half of the outstanding debt owed? Perhaps we should also get rid of that awful knot symbol--am I the only one that thinks that the Gorgorian knot might not be a good idea for the University's PR symbol give its financial mess?

With the president gone, can we now talk about getting rid of that terrible new symbol--the knot? And how about ending the "Case" label--I don't know about the rest of you, but I attended CWRU--Case always referred to Case Institute of Technology or the Engineering School when I was a student.

Case is running at a deficit. Changing names, signage, web sites, stationary, business cards, advertising, etc. takes a lot of money, so I doubt such changes would (or could) occur.

Are CWRU Trustees paid anything beyond a small stipend to cover travel expenses to meetings? If so, how much? Trustees of major corporations can be paid tens of thousands of dollars per year, is that true at CWRU? If so, perhaps deep cuts should be made in the Board of Trustees and the savings used to offset some cuts that would affect the true mission of the university. And shrinking the Board to a manageable size might lead to better oversight and help to prevent future administrations from putting CWRU at risk by overreaching (which, afterall, is a function of the Board of Trustees). We neither need to nor want to be another Ivy League university, we have our own unique history and strengths so lets build on these.

Also, I agree with previous commentators that the Case moniker should be dropped in favor of the more inclusive CWRU once again, as soon as the university can afford it. And I agree with the previous posters that the current logo should "knot" remain.

I concur with the last poster--if the Trustees are paid anything, in this instance they should forfeit it since they are partially responsible for the crisis. After looking over the last several comments, I too am more than confused how what seemed like such a good idea has now morphed into a financial mess for the University. Did no one do any number crunching when the Vision Investment Plan was proposed? And what about the voice of Alums in all this--how are we expected to respond when our beloved University mishandles its finances so poorly? An earlier poster raised the question of future donations--I agree, why should I continue to contribute when this is how my donations are wasted? I also agree about the "knot" and Case label--interesting idea, but neither tie the University groups together.

The Board of Trustees should not be merely a large ceremonial body of influential people. It should be a small working group (with emphasis on “working”) of, say, 7 to 15 people, with significant representation by alumni, which focuses on actually overseeing the finances and direction of the university.

Major benefactors of the university, whether individuals or families or corporations or foundations, do not need to be represented on a bloated Board of Trustees to honor their contributions. Listing donors in university reports and providing naming rights should continue, but it might be more inspiring if the university were to create a cwru.edu (yes, cwru) web presence for those donors who do not wish to remain anonymous, celebrating their contributions and providing biographical information on the givers and personal statements of their educational and philanthropic philosophies and why they chose to provide support to CWRU. The same could be said of notable alumni and other friends of the university – don’t give them meaningless appointments as Trustees, rather, let potential future students and the rest of the world read about them and their accomplishments 24/7 on the internet.

The administration did make an effort to be more forthcoming after the no confidence vote, but (as judged from outside) it was too little, too late. Processes which allow students, faculty, staff, alumni, and benefactors an honest evaluation of the state of the university and serious input to its direction need to be institutionalized to avoid a repeat of the present tragedy. Let’s use the brainpower and experience of all those who wish this institution well to greatest advantage.

I agree completely with the prior poster. The Board of Trustees should be a meaningful body of influential individuals that are held accountable for their decisions. Right now, the Board is not being held accountable for any of the mess they helped created at CWRU--I refuse to call the University CASE since I do not find it to be inclusive--and yet they will ultimately approve of whatever drastic cuts are made to cut the financial crisis. So how do we, as alumni, move forward to insure that we have a more powerful and meaningful voice and to make sure that this institution does not find itself in this mess again?

To respond to a recent poster: You can read about some of the university's fascinating alumni at http://www.case.edu/alumni/notable/ (or you can get to this page from the university home page, by clicking on "Alumni" on the left, and then clicking on "Notable alumni" at the top of the page). The university's Alumni Relations office always welcomes additional information to include on this page. You can submit information at http://www.case.edu/alumni/notable/submit.html. Some of the schools have information about their alumni on their pages, too.

I think this is a great idea. I'd rather read about an alum's accomplishments, perhaps which were made possible by their college education, then read about them because they gave money to their alma mater.

I am saddened by the resignation of Dr. Hundert. I was very excited when he accepted the position and brought his collarborative, inclusive style to the institution. It is upsetting to read in the wake of the no confidence vote at Harvard that this was suggested at Case (from newspaper reports I read).

With the dearth of great leaders for many organizations, it is truly a shame that Case is losing Dr. Hundert. Although I am not active in the alumni association, I am proud to be an MSASS grad and have a credential that is immediately recognized as coming from a great university. As an alumni, please convey my message that it is a great loss for our institution that Dr. Hundert is leaving but that I wish him well in his next endeavor.

I have not been privy to much of the changes, good or bad brought about during the tenure of Dr. Hundert. I understand that he meant well with his grand vision, and he may have acheived a fair bit of his goals. As a CWRU Med School alum, however, I will remember him as the president who, without adequate alumni input or forewarning, absconded with the identity of my alma mater. For that I will shed no tears at his departure. I suspect I am not alone in this.

How can the university help the disgruntled multitudes move forward? A personal letter of recognition of the gaffe and an apology for trampling our deeply held sentiments. A resolution to be much more sensitive,forthcoming and responsive with large scale changes would go a long way to heal the festering resentment I hold.

Do this and watch the support--financial and otherwise, return to our great institution.

It is sad that the old Case versus Western Reserve conflict, which seems to have been waning in the last couple decades, has been rekindled by the ill-advised (or non-advised) "Case" rebranding, nearly forty years after the formation of CWRU. Go back to "Case Western Reserve University"/"CWRU". Put the "Uni" back in "University". (From a former CIT student and alumnus.)

The funny thing is that the Board of Trustees was substantially pared down in recent years. So just think about how large it used to be!

Suggestion for the presidential search committee: seriously consider people who have knowledge of CWRU's proud heritage, such as CWRU alumni, faculty, and administrators. Bringing in outsiders who seem to lack such understanding has not worked very well lately. A sense of financial realism wouldn't hurt either.

For the record - the decision to use the branding name "CASE" for marketing purposes was made after literally years of discussion and input from all corners of the University - including quite a large number of Alumni! I personally sat in on many meetings where everyone had a say. The overwhelming vote of Alumni who were asked (and there were many, from every era and school) was to use the name that the students and the media were already using - CASE - as shorthand for Case Western Reserve University. In my opinion, in retrospect, the mistake that the University made was in the way the announcement was made (or not made) to the Alumni. The explanation of the research that went into the decision was never brought forward, so many Alumni to this day have no idea of what went in to that decision. There is no turning back on this so let's focus on things that really matter. Also, it is not true that traditions are being lost and ignored. Just tour the campus and history comes alive at every turn. Even the CASE magazine has articles celebrating the past.

All four in my family with degrees from CWRU or it's predecessors have negative opinions on the rebranding. Maybe there should have been a vote by all alumni. The branding was unnecessary and deleterious, and those efforts were the ones which lacked proper focus. Emotions do matter when deciding whether to write out a check to Alma Mater.

I disagree completely with an earlier posting about the Case brand--"There is no turning back on this so let's focus on things that really matter." The identity and branding of CWRU DOES MATTER! As a recent double alum, with a sibling and three cousins who have all gone to CWRU, I feel strongly that the CASE label was ill-advised and creates more exclusion than inclusion among alumni, regardless of generation/era. The name change is just further proof of the autocratic leadership style of Hundert and the complete lack of interest in the traditions/history of CWRU by its own Board of Trustees. These are all things need to be changed in order for this institution to move forward and survive this financial crisis.

As a recent alum of CWRU, with multiple family members who have also attended the University, I wanted to state that most would disagree with the earlier posting concerning the name change. Less than five years ago, CWRU, was still used as the branding name for the University. "Case" and that awful knot, are very recent developments and frankly rather unimpressive. In addition, "Case" has traditionally been used in association with either CIT or the Case School of Engineering--not the entire University. Nor does the "Case" label properly represent the diverse history of the institution--where in that brandname is there any reference to WRU, Flora Stone, Mather, Law, MSASS, Nursing, Dental, etc...? The CWRU name best incapsulated the histories of CIT and WRU along with the federation of the two institutions. If nothing else, perhaps the University could get rid of the knot--it symbolizes too well the financial mess CWRU is in thanks to Hundert.

Had the branding changed "CWRU" to "Reserve" instead of "Case", would there not have been righteous indignation shouted by CIT/CSE alumni? "CWRU" is just as short as "Case" and covers everyone. Given the the concerns expressed above and elsewhere, it seems eminently prudent to change the short name back to "CWRU".

I have never been in a conversation with someone that called it "Reserve", so their would be minimal precedent for that change. Everyone called it "Case" for short in conversation, not "CWRU". The shortened "Case" has been in use for a long time, even before it was formalized in the current marketing campaign. The university has to look at what outsiders will call it as well, and I am guessing for most tentative new students or local businesses that would be "Case" or the full name spelled out.

My mother and my father-in-law, both graduates of the north side of campus, have always referred to the large school in University Circle as "Reserve".

Indeed, back when there was a Western Reserve University, its nickname was Reserve.

In response to the comments that "Case" does not recognize dental, law, etc....these schools are the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Dental Medicine, etc., etc., so the name Case certainly does include them.

So does the name Reserve.

....or the Franklin Thomas Backus Law School..and compaints have been received from alumni that it's called Case Western Reserve University School of Law.

Case Western Reserve University, admittedly quite a mouthful, clearly needs an abbreviation. From the comments above, it should be rapidly vocalized (eliminating CWRU), and it should not offend a part of the university community (eliminating Case or Reserve). One need only peruse the archives of the CWRU student newspapers, specifically, the April 1st editions of The Observer and the Case Tech from the early 1970's, to find the obvious solution to this conundrum, namely SCWRU. Correctly pronounced, it is monosyllabic, and it should offend the graduates of all colleges equally.

As humorous and appealing as the last poster's comments are, they do not really solve the problem at hand. While CWRU is definately a mouthfull to say, and CASE certainly was used as shorthand for the University while I attended, CWRU was a more inclusive label, covering all of the schools and histories of the institution. I would also add that if the CASE brand has to be kept could the "knot" at least be abandoned. To get back on topic, what has been done to fix the financial problem of the institution, regardless of its brandname? I've tried finding recent information on the University website but have found very little updated information. So what is going on?

The last commentator is correct, updated information on the university’s financial problems doesn’t seem to be available anywhere.

My sense over the years had been that CWRU was cautious with money to the point of being stingy. Even as a struggling graduate student on the school’s payroll, I never thought of that as a negative - organizations, just like individuals and families, have to live within their budgets and prioritize their expenditures. Then new people came into power with aggressive spending plans and grandiose slogans, and before we on the outside realized what was happening, the university altered its identity (as perceived by many) and has apparently entered a serious fiscal crisis.

For 180 years, CWRU has done an excellent job of producing graduates who have gone on to successful careers in just about any field one can think of, which is what really matters. If plodding improvements are all we can afford, so be it. What exactly could be possible beyond that anyway? Do we aspire to be Harvard or Yale? Do we really want a significant fraction of our students to be legacies? I personally prefer that CWRU continue to be a merit-based school.

As a loyal and active alumnus I rejoice at the
resignation of Edward Hundert. His arrogance and apparent disregard for CWRU tradition and alumni were manifest. Perhaps his psychiatric training failed him in the art of sound self analysis and art of human relaions. Until the University trustees provide authentic leadership in restoring the institution's luster I shall happily join those who regretfully withhold financial support. Nor will I recommend that students apply to the University.

Not only is SCWRU a neutral replacement for Case as the university’s short name, but it could displace the much despised knot in the visual logo. Instead of the knot symbolically (and unsuccessfully) tying the university’s components together, we could have the SCWRU fastening together Case, Western Reserve, Mandel, Weatherhead, Medicine, Nursing, Dental, Law, etc. One could even add a thread for the long-defunct School of Library Sciences (in honor of my wife who is a graduate thereof).

Does anyone remember the name of the man who was university treasurer during the 1970’s? He was a former Cleveland banker whose father was murdered during the 1940’s while working as a WRU professor. The son was one of the major forces responsible for putting the school’s finances in the black where it stayed for about three decades. This kind of careful stewardship of CWRU’s assets is more appealing than the “drunken patron of the MGM Grand Casino waiting for the big payoff” sort of management we’ve seen lately. Put differently, if you are holding a MegaMillions ticket which might win tonight’s drawing, you could have millions of dollars in the bank in a couple weeks, but it would not be wise to spend that money just yet.

I have very mixed feelings about continuing my (modest, random) contributions to CWRU. I want to see the university flourish, but I don’t like the idea of sending money down a black hole. Perhaps the courage demonstrated by the Arts and Sciences faculty will inspire me to contribute once the initial shock of all this wears off.

As much as I hate to admit it, I understand the sentiment expressed by David Johnson. I in fact recommended that two relatives attend CWRU, which they are both doing currently. I regret that I did so only because they are both at the University during a time that does not highlight the excellent education/research traditions of the institution. Instead, they are witnessing the uglier side of academia, failed leadership and bad financial decisions. I again would like to know what is being done to address this crisis. The University's website provides little information about the crisis. How can we, as alums, make informed decisions concerning donating to the University, if we unable to find adequate data on its fiscal state? Until that information is available I feel it would be financially irresponsible of me to make a contribution to CWRU. This is an awful Catch-22 that the University has put alums in--we want to help the University, and yet we are provided no information about how the crisis is being solved.

Just as an addendum to the last post, will we ever hear from anyone in the administration about the points being raised in this blog/forum? Do they really care what we, alums of CWRU, think and feel about not only the University but this needless financial crisis? Hello...is anyone out there in the admin listening?

We would like to thank alumni and future alumni for using the Alumni Talkback Blog. Your feedback, passion, and continued support in the university are greatly appreciated.

The office of University Alumni Relations and central administration will be using this feedback both directly and indirectly to make future decisions regarding future alumni engagement, including programming. We will also use current communication vehicles, such as AlumNews and our website, to help answer questions that you may have. By talking back, you are helping us better understand the needs of our alumni.

That is all fine and good, but the University Alumni Relations office has failed to address the more immediate question raised, which has been raised throughout this thread. What is going on at CWRU concerning the financial crisis. I understand that Gregory Eastwood has been named Interium President, but beside that there has been little information made available about the state of the University's finances and possible solutions for alums to consider.

As information becomes available, the University Alumni Relations office will share it with you.

You may find the following links from CasePoint (http://blog.case.edu/casepoint/) informative:

President Hundert Discusses the Budget Process

President Hundert answers common questions heard during open forums, including:
*What process has been put in place to identify budget reductions for fiscal year 2007?
*What are we doing to increase philanthropic support?
*Why doesn’t Case use its endowment to cover the budget shortfall?
*Will the current budget issues affect student services, especially financial aid?

Thank you for the information, but I've already looked at those links and in fact if the Alumni Office would notice, information from those links and others have been used in earlier parts of this thread by concerned alums. Again, the question being asked is what is currently/presently being considered on the campus? How do you expect us, alums, to give to the University, when there is no information available to make an informed choice in our donating?

I find it hard to believe that a lot of alumni input went into the rebranding decision, Back in the 70's, when I attended, we always referred to the school as Case Western or CWRU. Granted, "Case Western" isn't as pithy as "Case", but it does refer to the whole university and not just one of the undergraduate schools. I'm in touch with a number of folks who attended CWRU, and not one is pleased with the rebranding. Perhaps the current students are fine with it, but they are not being asked for donations. The first time I saw the new logo, I thought "it looks like Case won and Western Reserve lost."

Since the open forums just happened in the last couple of weeks, maybe that is the most current information and there is little new to report yet.

I understand Baffled Alum's yearning for updated information, and for me it's akin to waiting for the second shoe to drop. I'd like to see Dr. Eastwood give an honest and complete assessment of where CWRU stands financially, including how much we alumni will be asked to contribute to the inevitable bailout. The worst thing which could happen at this point would be for the interim administration to hide further bad news. Perhaps an outside audit of the university's finances is in order (I recommend that they do not use Arthur Andersen).

The more things change, the more they stay the same. My student days were long ago ('78-'82 + grad school), but a recent visit to Cleveland to hear a concert at Severance included a short walk around the campus. Lovely, shiney new buildings, beautiful walkways and sculptures, and only a handful of student in sight. Granite monuments to education, without the actual education.

While waiting to cross Euclid, I happened to overhear two student talking about how one of their advisors had spent the last 6 months finding excuses to avoid speaking with him. I half expected to turn around and see a ghost of myself! I found a copy of the Observer to get a glimose of what was happening, and also found the Athenian (too funny - I didn't think that anyone had any sense of humor left there). The attitude on the campus clearly hadn't changed significantly since my departure.

Listening to the various bickerings regarding the alumni associations the past several years was finally capped off by the president leaving "under tension". I don't care that someone saved a few nickels by having THEIR alumini office someplace else, at the expense of embarrassing the university. You wasted those nickels by mailing me a letter bragging about your feat, resulting in my tearing up my donation. By the way, does the Wittke award for undergraduate teaching still equal the kiss of death in the tenure-track review process? The leadership culture apparently hasn't changed much either.

What is saddest of all is that after all the work to get into, and then graduate from such a competitive university, memories, and worst of all the future outlook of your graduates, will be framed in cynicism and negativity.

My memories of CWRU (I naively think I graduated from CWRU rather than CIT or WRU) are strong, but often in spite of the institution rather than because of it. I had the privilege of meeting some fine people in the dorms (Go! Kusch House!). I experienced one of the finest symphonies on a regular basis due to freebie tickets given out every Thursday at Tomlinson Hall. Art History lectures were luxuriously given in the galleries of the Cleveland Museum of Art rather than the usual dry slide lecture. Art studio classes were taken in the basement of Wickenden Building as well as the CIA. Along with a great friend, I helped organize the first Top Of The Hill Olympics in the Spring of 1981 (Happy Silver Anniversary! I hope it still exists. Not too bad for a Cum Laude graduate in Chemical Engineering!

There are world-class institutions within University Circle and I availed myself with every opportunity to educate myself by visiting, exploring and demanding the right to be educated by the richness of the variety present. Or should I have spent my time only be trained to act as a chemical engineer? My advisor certainly thought so. The Dean's office thought so, as evidenced by a huge burden (nearly triple the course requirements before they approved an off-beat humanities sequence). Ironically, my diverse interests have recently been approved as SAGES, which has garnered numerous cynical praises by student who should be insisting on access to the richness available around them.

Have the decency to transform the university into the thing you actually wish for it, and stop abusing faculty and students alike by having a system that requires one set of activities, but only rewards another entirely different set : First, eliminate the undergraduate colleges altogether - you don't care about teaching, only research, and you only need grad students for that. Second, divide all of the schools to become independent again. The competing self-interests of the various groups will never be resolved as they position themselves within an unwieldy and inefficiently-large Board. I can't believe that the 1967 Federation is still being contested. Pathetic. Fire everyone involved with the university prior to that.

You cannot succeed on your current path of graduating bitter, exhausted students. I hope you decide to do better, and to take the actions necessary.

Maybe it is time to admit that the CWRU federation was a failure and return to C and WRU. This would finally put and end to the rumors which have been floating around since the late 1960's that graduates of the colleges have been trying to buy their schools out of CWRU and make them independent again. While the resulting duplicate Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, English, etc. departments, duplicate administrations and admissions offices and maintenance staffs, and so on might be seen as inefficiencies, the schools could spin them as new job creation, something Cleveland desperately needs. It would also be a bonanza for those seeking trustee status since there could be two boards of 79 trustees rather than just one, and even more if the professional schools decided to break off of WRU. CSAS/CIT/CSE (Case) could raze the Michelson-Morley fountain (an unfortunate reminder of an early misguided Case / Western Reserve collaboration), and use the old Case Main stones from the fountain and embedded in the Yost Hall landscaping to rebuild new Case Main in the same spot as old Case Main (there is precedent for this, Ohio State tore down its original building, University Hall, in 1972 (the same year as Case Main's demise) and rebuilt it in 1976 on the same site using pieces from the original). I don't think there is any physical barrier to prevent the old fence separating CIT and WRU from being rebuilt exactly as it was. And the gargoyle on the west face of WRU's Amassa Stone Chapel tower could once again be snarling and spitting solely at the Case campus.

... or ...

Everyone involved could do some soul searching and consider the possibility that with CWRU the whole is indeed greater than the sum of the parts. Realize that the scope of all great universities is broad as well as deep, and that all fields of study are of value. Streamline the Board of Trustees and the administration and make them truly accountable for their decisions. Give the lowly students, faculty, staff, and alumni a real voice in the decisions that affect the university. Stop maintaining separate alumni associations which is arrogant, wasteful, and insulting. Find a way to stop the power and ego games played by those with influence. Cut costs starting at the top to make tuition more realistic - administrators should not be making hundreds of thousands of dollars when a year of study costs more than the average family income (no one has yet convinced me that there is a strong correlation between the magnitude of salary demand and competency in either academia or industry, there are too many obvious counterexamples).

Bravo for the last commentator, especially the later part of the posting. I recently visited the campus and while its nice to see new buildings, what is happening programmatically is far more important than nice shiney, over built structures. Change needs to happen on the campus. The Board of Trustees need to be streamlined and a greater voice made for students, faculty and alums--how can we be expected to give, when our voice is limited at best? I also think that by now, nearly a month after this financial crisis began, there should be some information that can be made available to the alums--irregardless of College affinity--about the state of the University. I understand the emotions of some of the older alums about the various college alumni associations and histories surrounding federation. Which is why I remain unconvinced about the rebranding of the University--did no one in the administration bother to look at the history of the campus and realize that selecting "CASE" over "CWRU" might alienate alums? This shortsightedness I guess was endemic of the last administration given the financial crisis before us.

The answer to the earlier question about the university treasurer in the 1970’s is Peter R. Musselman (source http://www.cwru.edu/artsci/isus/markingsanswer2.htm):

“Portion of the carved marble bench and bronze plaque marking the Peter R. Musselman Quadrangle, the area of the campus immediately west of the front entrance of Adelbert Hall. Mr. Musselman died in 1986, shortly after retiring from the University. He had served as the institution’s chief financial and administrative officer since 1969, providing important leadership in financial management, campus planning and development, and investments in athletics and student life. The area was dedicated to his memory in 1994.”

Let’s hope that all CWRU administrators and trustees reflect on Mr. Musselman’s legacy of sound financial management every time pass through the Peter R. Musselman Quadrangle upon entering and exiting Adelbert Hall. Furthermore, let’s hope that they are not purposefully avoiding this reminder of more fiscally responsible times by using the rear door of Adelbert Hall.

Reading over the multiple entries on this blog, I am struck by several things. There is no doubt that most alums still have strong feelings toward the University, regardless of college affinity or alumni association loyalty. In addition, there seems to be consensus that the rebranding effort, at least from an alumni standpoint, was a failure or at best a questionable decision. Also, most alums are shocked, saddened, and angry to see the institution in the financial mess that it finds itself now. I think these points offer positive and negative feedback for the University to consider. Alums remain interested in the University, for how long those remains to be seen. They identify or at least use to identify with the institution. Finally, they want more information about the crisis and what is being done to reverse it. So, hello Alumni Office and Univeristy officials, we want to know what is going on.

As the University looks at cutting budgets for '06 and '07, I expect they'll be looking to reduce headcounts. I sincerely hope they'll focus on cutting higher-level positions.

I expect most faculty and staff watched sceptically as expenditures increased, and now that those have proven foolhardy they may have to pay with their jobs. Loyal staff who have been employed at the school for years and decades may be swept out through no fault of their own. These people have kept CWRU running as administrations have come and go. It would be silly and insulting to think the school couldn't operate without, oh, "Lara A. Kalafatis, Vice President, University Relations" who seems to have bungled those relations to a serious shortfall in giving and now just writes letters about the shining light that was Hundert and his Vision, but that her admin or other dependable staffers must be let go.

I've also heard the Hundert will be receiving a golden parachute of a year's salary. That's 1/40 of the total that needs to be cut, and maybe 20 members of the University and Cleveland community that could keep their jobs, working towards a better future for our school. Anyone who voted for that contract should be removed from the Board, I think it would reduce its ungainly size.

I agree completely with the last two postings. So far, there has been no discussion from CWRU officialdom on making the administration and the board smaller and more effective, let alone any admission of their recent failings, and I am not holding my breath until I see any. The problem of overpaid and under-accountable administrators with golden parachutes is not limited to CWRU, it is unfortunately pretty universal nowadays.

What precisely did “creating the world’s most powerful learning environment” mean? True learning always has been and always will be mostly dependent on the individual effort of the learner. A university is responsible for providing students with inspiring curricula and professors, research opportunities, libraries and now internet access, laboratories, dormitories, social interaction, and supporting services (safety, food, construction and maintenance, etc.). There is a continual process of improvement, and the jobs of the administrators and trustees are to prioritize the requests for money and plan the expenses to be within the funds available, to increase those funds to the extent possible, and then get out of the way of the faculty and staff and students.

CWRU should not play in the worldwide competition for “superstar” professors in order to entice naïve high school seniors. Often, they rarely teach undergraduate classes, so the costs undoubtedly far outweigh the benefits. There are plenty of unemployed or underemployed Ph.D.’s who would love to continue the tradition of competent teaching and research at CWRU at a fair salary.

Has anyone heard any news regarding the financial crisis and the effects of this on the educational programs at the University? I've looked in the Observer and the Plain Dealer but have found never little that is useful. I would also direct everyone's attention to a recent letter to the editor in the Observer. http://observer.case.edu/Archives/Volume_38/Issue_24/Story_849/
Apparently even today's students at CWRU have a hard time grasping the educational worth/value of a broad-based curriculum--what happen to SAGES and its positive influences on the University's programs? Will it be a victim of the likely budget cuts to come?

Haven't heard a thing. I also wonder how deep the cuts will go.

I really feel bad for the staff who will probably bear the brunt of the budget cuts, through no fault of their own.

As a CWRU (Law) graduate who does not live in Ohio, I have been anxious to learn more about what was going on at CWRU ever since Dr. Hundert's resignation tipped me off to the fact that all was not well with the institution. I'm grateful for this BLOG because it has helped me get a sense of what led to Hundert's resignation and what the pressing issues are now at CWRU (as opposed to the carefully-worded letters from him and the Board Chair, etc., which told us outlanders very little about the actual situation). As a contributor, I'm interested in knowing that my donations are being spent wisely. It sounds as if some accounting is called for now - it also sounds as if the current Board of Trustees is too large, unwieldy and therefore incapable of real oversight. It needs to be comprised of individuals from all parts of the country -- who will be less parochial and more interested in making CWRU a nationally recognized institution. And indeed more board members should be alumni - the people who are the greatest stakeholders with respect to CWRU's reputation and future prospects.

http://www.cwru.edu/its/archives/180th/180th1960.htm

(See 1967 photo and caption.)

Looks like Dr. Millis and Dr. Morse were way ahead of some alumni of today.

"Can't we all just get along." - Rodney Smith

Ok, I've been patiently waiting to see if there might be any news on the financial crisis at the University. What is going on at CWRU and how is the financial disaster being handled? Has anyone heard any news recently? I've looked in the Observer and seen nothing of any substance. What is happening to our institution?

Okay...can someone from the administration please explain to the alums what is happening to our beloved institution. There seems to be a mass exodus of deans from the institution....and what is the financial situation for the University. Hello....anyone out there in the administration listening to the concerns of the alums?

My diploma (dated June 1960) states that I graduated from Western Reserve University School of Medicine. The merger of Case and WRU seemed to be a "marriage of convenience" that brought benefits to both. The label "Case Western Reserve University" (or CWRU) trips off the tongue better than "Western Reserve Case University" (or perhaps we are just used to the former). At any rate when residents would say, "Oh, you went to Case", I would quickly inform them that "No, I went to Western Reserve". To have dropped the Western Reserve completely from day-to-day references to CWRU was, and remains, a great offense to me. None-the-less I will continue to contribute to the Medical School Scholarship Fund (hoping and trusting that it is used for that purpose) as my medical education (the best in the country at the time) was supported by that source.

On another note, I know Greg Eastwood from 10 years at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. He is a person of commitment and integrity. Whether he can help the University recover from its financial plight is not known but he (and the University) deserve our support. Now is not the time to decrease our financial or other contributions to Case Western Reserve University regardless of when we graduated or what school we attended.

The following is a comment I left following the rather unflattering article in "Inside Higher Education" on the subject of Hundert's resignation and the rebranding of the university. The paucity of objective information available on this matter is yet another reason for skepticism. The revered professor I mention in my comments is Walter A. Strauss, the finest teacher I have ever known. He kept a strong candle burning when so many other lights were going out all over campus.

"I'm a '79 grad of WRC. I've lately heard that four deans have also resigned. The university seems to have reentered a period of disarray comparable to the 1970s. I'm quite certain that the rebranding of the university reminds any alumni older than, say, fifty of not entirely amusing anecdotes of the friction between two neighboring but not very compatible schools that undertook a marriage of convenience (e.g., the chapel gargoyle that nearly ended negotiations). I must admit I have for some time resented the backseat the honorable, old name of Western Reserve has been given by the larger university--along with the deliberate devaluation or elimination of a great many departments, functions, and degrees once identified with a university on whose great professional schools the name Case draws the lion's share of its post-union prestige. My loyalties to CWRU rest chiefly with my deep respect for a handful of professors who have kept the humanities alive there in a time when humanity seemed to matter little to bureau- and technocrats. I had hoped that the nineties marked a return of respect, but since rebranding, I would have a hard time imagining any sort of alumnus gifts unless the matter is turned around."

I would like to know what the status is of the Brandname Task force that was initiated by Interim President Gary Eastwood back in late September, 2006. As reported by the Observer on October 6th, the then president floated the idea of yet another branding name change. The Observer reporter stated that "Eastwood proposed the idea of vertically writing the university's full name with the word Case in italics on banners." What is the status of this task group and their report and why were alumns not notified of this effort?