John Thrasher should be Florida State's last politician president.
For a decade, Florida State University has courted the U.S. News rankings with singular focus and remarkable success. Our university has joined the big leagues, and it intends to keep moving up. That’s the job our trustees have set for FSU’s next president. What will it take?
Every single candidate for the job has the same answer: money — or, as one first round candidate put it, "money, money, money, money, money."
But where is that money to be found?
For John Thrasher and his predecessors, the answer was straightforward: the Florida Legislature. And President Thrasher successfully procured the state funding we needed to make it to our present position.
Because of our new standing, though, the answer has changed. Now that FSU is a Top 20 university, the path forward goes beyond the Capitol.
In 2018-19, FSU’s $499 million in state appropriations made up 35% of its budget. The University of Florida got a lot more money from the state — $785 million — but that was only 23% of its revenue. FSU is an outlier in this regard. On average, the top 30 schools got just 15% of their revenue from state allocations. You can see a data visualization at http://bit.ly/fsu-revenue.
To be clear, this does not mean that FSU gets too much money from the state. It means FSU’s revenue growth must come from other sources — especially federal research funding.
Few of us follow such budget details closely. This presidential search has been eye opening for everyone. As one trustee put it, “I should have paid more attention, and I should have known, that we were lacking severely... and for that I apologize.”
We’ve learned FSU needs to increase its research budget by about $250 million. That kind of money will not come from the state Legislature, where a $10-million increase is a big win. The Legislature has to balance the interests of many worthy and deserving institutions. It will not bankrupt everyone else to boost FSU.
What does all this mean for FSU's presidential search?
The selection committee has done a great job. We have three excellent finalists, each a distinguished scientist with deep experience finding and managing hundreds of millions— even billions — in research funding. Each is an expert in exactly the work this job now requires.
The days of relying on Tallahassee connections as the most important moneymaker have come to an end. Our success is a tribute to the hard work of past presidents — and the taxpayers who support us. But the next step requires different tools and a different kind of leader.
FSU will always need great relationships at the Capitol, and we are thankful for the ongoing state support that will remain foundational to our university. But our next president will be the first with priorities beyond state appropriations.
John Thrasher was FSU's last politician president. It’s a mark of his success that he will be followed by an academic who can harness our tremendous research potential.
Barron wasn't a politician. 2 of our last 3 were. The first was TK and he did horrible on almost all levels including state funding and appropriations. In fact, he hurt FSU here, let alone improved FSU here. Thrasher has been negligible in this area.
None of the politicos helped FSU in the biggest areas with state appropriations and that is COE and COM. Schools that have their own Full Mission Med School and own COE include: FAU, FIU, UCF, UF, USF.
None of FSU's politicos helped keep FSU with the pack there, let alone gave FSU an advantage.
FSU has neither their own COE or full mission COM. This is very bad for FSU's future in research. FSU commissioned a study in early 2000s that detailed this issue for FSU. Around $230 million a year in annual research $ compared to say UF at almost $800 million. You simply can't keep up long term when these other schools have these state appropriations and FSU doesn't.
Thrasher has had some positive growth in research and jumping from $200 million in research to $233 today. Sandy saw research dollars more than double during his tenure winding up at $147 million in 2002. Both have done well, statistically, Sandy's #s easily outpaced any other president FSU has had (and he didn't have a COM during most of his tenure).
In 1994 when Sandy started, FSU's endowment was ranked #256 by NACUBO. When he left in 2002 FSU reached #128. When Thrasher took over in 2015, FSU had fallen to #157. FSU has since fallen 3 more spots in most recent rankings to #160. No FSU president has even come close to the positive impact endowment wise that Sandy has.
When TK took over, FSU had a US News rank of 108 and finished at 102. Barron at 102 to 91. Thrasher at 95 to 58. Almost all the jump was during Thrasher's tenure. Think bright futures is #1 reason why, but Thrasher deserves massive credit taking advantage and working the numbers. He did great here.
I accept that FSU will hire a politico....I get it. I even admit Thrasher did a good job in some areas. He did amazing with finally figuring out US News rankings which no other president could do. I don't get a few things that make me wonder:
*Why FSU always hires politicos and UF never does. This is just curious to me. UF gets ALL the advantages with the state (unlike FSU) and FSU rarely does
*Why do the politicos get credit for giving FSU some advantage that hasn't actually happened? Not only is FSU hamstrung with no COE of it's own and limited mission med schools, but even directional schools in this state have gotten BOTH (let alone one) while FSU's politicos didn't deliver. IF we are going to sell out, I just wish FSU would at least be able to keep up in the state appropriation of the most critical areas for research.
*Why FSU is so averse to just going with hiring the best available candidate. The inside hires, etc have hurt FSU IMHO. Univ. of Tallahassee has not been good for FSU long term. JMHO.
*Show me any state funding comparison with actual trended #s that proves FSU has been funded less with non politicos over the last 40 years vs politicos. Just doesn't exist. But this is repeated over and over. TK even hurt FSU in this area.
I do agree with you.....I have no doubt the hire was decided long ago and this is just a show, so a non issue. But I can't help correct some points that are regularly stated that just aren't true...so often presumed.
Here are FSU research numbers compared to other universities in our state during Thrasher's tenure:
Total increase in research dollars (2015-2019. Thrasher's tenure):
| FSU | $32,771,550 |
| UF | $69,400,000 |
| UCF | $58,700,000 |
| USF | $84,000,000 |
| FIU | $38,949,379 |
FSU is last in this area.
| Research Awards | Compound Growth Rate 2002-2019 | Total $ Increase 2002-2019 |
| FSU | 2.73% | $85,700,000 |
| UF | 3.43% | $339,000,000 |
| UCF | 5.66% | $116,700,000 |
| USF | 5.60% | $317,102,310 |
| FIU | 5.43% | $93,100,000 |
FSU's growing rate as well as Total $ is also dead last.
Make of those figures what you would like, but other than cheerleading, the metrics aren't what many like to claim.
The only way to judge endowment trends is by NACUBO rankings.
When Thrasher took over as president, FSU was ranked #157. Last ranking was #158.
The last president to do well in this area was Sandy. The rest did very poorly.
42,000 alumni living in Tallahassee. We have only 1,400 boosters in that group
No comments:
Post a Comment