1. K-State home
  2. »Office of the President
  3. »2025 Visionary Plan
  4. »K-State 2025: A Visionary Plan for Kansas State University
  5. »Refresh
  6. »Feedback

2025 Visionary Plan

Innovation and Inspiration Campaign

If you have questions or comments, or suggestions, please send an email to 2025@k-state.edu

Spring 2020 Survey Results

Survey results

During Fall 2019, the K-State community shared ideas and feedback to inform the K-State 2025 Refresh effort. More than 180 K-Staters responded to an online survey and hundreds of faculty and staff participated in one of the fifteen 2025 fall college/major unit visits. In addition, the K-State 2025 Refresh process involves the exploration of new strategic initiatives that recognize our strengths, acknowledge areas for improvement, and identify opportunities for growth.

Through the spring 2020 semester, we explored four strategic areas of focus: Global Food, Health and Biosecurity; Aviation; the Cyber Land-Grant University; and Innovation in Education. Please note these initiatives are in addition to our ongoing focus on Student Success and Wellbeing as reflected in the Strategic Enrollment Management plan.

We gathered ideas, suggestions, and comments for additional strategic initiatives and priorities to be considered as part of the K-State 2025 Refresh via this online survey from February 6 through March 30, 2020.


K-State Affiliations

Answer

%Count
Student0.00%0
Faculty36.67%11
Administrator13.33%4
Professional Staff40.00%12
University Support Staff10.00%3
Other0.00%0
Total100%30

Suggestions or comments on our four strategic initiative areas

  • Global food, health, and biosecurity: A preeminent challenge facing this and following generations is how the world will address the food-health-biosecurity nexus. The demand on resources will grow exponentially due to increased population, climate change, and large-scale migrations. Food quality, availability, safety, cost, and security will be of paramount importance to global human health and societal stability. In addition, the increasing and evergreen demand for health care professionals will be critical to serving our communities at home and around the world. Kansas State University will lead through teaching, research, and service to address the global truths that challenge the future of our most basic needs: health and safety. 

  • Aviation: Kansas State University will be a global leader in aviation innovation and talent development. The university will advance the transformation of the aviation industry through innovative education, influential research, entrepreneurial thinking, and technology-centered, sustainable solutions to complex industry problems. 

  • The Cyber Land-Grant University: As a modern land-grant university, Kansas State University will mobilize and develop technology to serve our communities. This includes imagining ways to extend the benefits of existing technologies to underserved populations in both rural and urban areas and creating entirely new technological solutions to fundamental problems. 

  • Innovation in Education: Kansas State University will transform to meet the changing needs of both traditional and non-traditional students, enhancing the quality and variety of educational programs offered to Kansans and beyond. We will celebrate and support innovation in pedagogy, academic programs, educational technology, and infrastructure. This will include reimagining our models for academic innovation, including our Teaching and Learning Center, and online education. 

Maybe with Aviation to expand it to Aviation and applied science and innovation Developing applied programs that are the innovations of tomorrow to serve Kansas and the world - applied programs in aviation, outer space, renewal energy, wind farms in Kansas, in health and medical equipment, or other areas. 

I know these are meant to be thought of broadly but they could be worded better for a broad interpretation while still being strategic. NSF uses the term convergent research which I think is where you are trying to go. But these initiatives sound narrow when you are trying to attract more students and quality graduate students and faculty. We want to draw from the best and I fear some will look at those and if they are interested in journalism, or physical therapy, or hotel restaurant management, or creative writing, or any number of things, these initiatives may need all of those people but they may be turned off before they even apply. 

Transparency. The budget model is creating unnecessary divisions and deep silos. We must do better. 

These seem like good K-State strengths and areas to focus on. 

The online food science degrees should be more accessible. Right now, it makes potential students complete several gen ed courses before they can be apart of the program. That makes sense for on campus students, but for online students, it's just a deterrent keeping them from choosing K-State. 

Health and safety not only means educating students but providing innovative health related research. If we wish to maintain the R1 rating, faculty need to be actively engaged within high quality research and students need to be provided with hands on research experience that may not be provided with the global campus and cyber university concepts. 

The global food, health, and biosecurity initiative should be expanded to explicitly include the environmental challenges that underlie the most pressing issues facing Kansas and the world. The environmental changes that must be anticipated and addressed through innovative multi-disciplinary approaches to ensure a safe and secure future include climate change, population growth, scarcity of fresh water and other resources, environmental degradation, losses of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and emerging pathogens and infectious diseases. I don't think these very real and imminent challenges are adequately captured in the current global food, health, and biosecurity initiative. The initiative either needs to be expanded to address these environmental challenges, or an additional strategic initiative needs to be developed to capture K-State's unique strengths and abilities in the area of global environmental change. 

These new initiatives basically ignore about 80% of the research and creative efforts that occur on campus. These really only represent one of the current strengths of the university. These are also not "all encompassing" strategic initiatives, they are basically a poorly thought out grab bag of things that are kinda doing ok on campus. This really demonstrates both a lack of vision and a poor understanding of what actually happens on the KSU campuses. 

We must increase our live 24/7 IT Technical Support because students and instructors need assistance in a 24/7 format.

Geology and the history of the Earth will continue to be of academic importance in the future, but would not appear to fit into any of these four categories. 

Each college should have their own Instructional Designer/Technologist to complement the content experts (faculty). This can pay dividends both online and on-campus. This would also help faculty bring classes that are needed from reluctant faculty or departments online. 

We need a comprehensive vision for quality online educational options to support students. We've been in the online education realm for a long time, but it grew very organically and not strategically. We need to ensure that our online programs are taught in a high quality way using best practices for online education. Too many of our faculty are left without training and support - left to fend for themselves and guess at the best way to do things. They deserve support for improving the innovation and accessibility of the courses as well as recognition for their efforts - teaching online is not easy. 

We need to stay at the cutting edge of new developments, for the benefit of our students, our state, the country and the world. Among them are all things data science/data analytics, and resiliency. Both of these are hot and high impact issues. We need to stay on top of them. We need to keep our tools effective and our achievements lively, so we need to stay super competitive in basic research and scholarly activity. 

As a faculty researcher in A & S, I do not see my work or the work of my colleagues fitting in to these four foci. I would advocate for an explicit research component, and would like to see humanist/social science approaches (and contributions) figured into the strategic areas. I would also suggest the initiatives focus on non-industry achievements and outcomes, to include faculty and students' (1) contributions to civic society (2) relationship growth and support (3) ability to participate in inclusive, socially just, and democratic public life (4) cultural and other literacies, digital and otherwise For cyber land-grant institution, I think there are opportunities to leverage already existing strengths at KSU by critically interrogating technology use and creation from an ethical-political humanist framework. As a technology scholar, I am acutely aware that one important feature for future technology use is the ability to opt-out, not just extend or create additional technologies. In other words, we shouldn't just create new technological solutions, we should understand the impacts (known and unknown) of technology on society. We must make room for this in our research, teaching, and service. Finally, we must celebrate (and incentivize) excellence in public scholarship, including public intellectualism, translating academic research to broader audiences, teaching in the community, and other forms of extension. This may be part of the cyber land-grant initiative, insofar as digital tools provide opportunities to disseminate knowledge discovered at K-State beyond it. This will also help us make a case to the public for why our model of institution ought be supported. 

Earth and the environment Resiliency Exploration and innovation (for any category, from earth and space exploration, to drug innovation) Water 

Research is the corner stone of our university's mission, and yet it's not listed as a single one of the four areas of focus, and only listed briefly in "aviation" and "global health." This is deeply concerning. Our status in teaching and extension flows from a position as a leader in research. Without that lodestar, there's nothing that separates us from Pittsburgh State or Ft. Hayes. We cannot be derivative. We have to be leaders, but we cannot do that if our administration will hamstring those attempts by focusing on other metrics. 

I don't have enough familiarity with the first two initiatives to comment, but as far as Innovation in education initiatives go, a good example to look at is Oregon State University. Their online learning experience is very impressive and should be considered a benchmark to compare the industry to. Obviously we need to set ourselves apart, but we should try to find a way to hold ourselves to similarly high standards. I also see the Cyber Land-Grant University initiative as an opportunity to think differently about the traditional university model. As we think about how we can serve communities, we can also consider and apply the same considerations to 

These are largely incoherent as presented. The proposed new initiatives are meant to ‘recognize our strengths’, ‘acknowledge areas for improvement’, and ‘identify opportunities for growth’. If so, why does the document not make clear which initiatives are building on strengths and which are correcting weaknesses? For example, is the focus on aviation because we are good at aviation or bad at aviation? No rationale is presented for why these particular 4 areas are important/interesting/unifying/etc. Of the 4, Global Food, health and biosecurity is the least bad. I like that it meshes well with the land-grant mission but has a global focus as well. It meshes with a subset of faculty in many different colleges- Ag, Vet Med, Arts and Sciences and others. i dislike that it’s framed in very applied terms. As at all major universities, much of the heart and soul of this university involves more fundamental research, teaching and scholarship in the natural sciences and humanities. That is not recognized in any of these strategic areas. In more practical terms, this focus area would also mean that the university continues to funnel intramural money into research programs that have already received a great deal of targeted local support. The aviation focus is embarrassing. What fraction of KSU research and teaching relates to aviation? I am sure it is quite small. What is the argument for making that particular fraction larger, especially in an era of fixed/declining budgets? This risks the credibility of the whole document if it looks too much like a pet project of the upper admin and not a unifying theme for a broad swath of the university community. The Cyber land-grant thing is meaningless as written. What technology? To serve what end? Who will create it? Who will use it? This sort of meaningless consultant-babble detracts from the whole document. The Innovation in education component is similarly devoid of meaningful content. Phrases like ‘reimagining our models for academic innovation’ are meaningless without specifics. It also seems to overlap excessively with the Cyber Land-grant theme. 

1-Innovation in Education and Cyber Land Grant are not really strategic initiatives in my opinion. These two should be embedded throughout the university, in strategic initiatives and elsewhere. These two are what we should be doing throughout the university. 2-Global health, food security, and biosecurity is so broad as to be meaningless. 

I like the cyber land-grant positioning. Unfortunately I often feel K-State has lost it's land-grant mission so having this included is at least somewhat reassuring. Hopefully this includes taking knowledge outside of Manhattan and in more ways than online courses (first gen and underserved poor communities/residents often are intimidated by or do not have quality access to online-only delivered content) I'm concerned the term "innovation" has become a buzzword. Numerous reports are now available about the fiscal drain and lack of achievement at university "innovation" centers. Hopefully this is more than just a buzzword in the plan. I would rather see this labeled as education for all rather than innovation. What you've stated is quality education for anyone who participates in K-State learning. Sorry - this is reads as an empty statement from a conference speech or a consultant. 

Yes, we need to serve our campus students, but we also need to consider the needs of non-traditional students, alumni and employers. What kinds of up skills do employers want their employees to learn? Can we provide these skills and still keep the on campus classrooms running with only a set number of professors? With new technologies, we are not limited to on-campus lectures, but to become a cyber land-grant, we will have to use innovative technologies and we may need to hire instructional designers to help faculty create these innovative practices. 

We need to address biodiversity and sustainability in the global food initiative. Without incorporating these, we create bigger problems for ourselves and a greater strain on people and resources. Aviation and Cyber Land-Grant appear very broad, with little detail on the issues at stake, but maybe they are supposed to be that way. 

The Cyber Land-Grant University is a great initiative, but it seems like it could almost be the driving forced behind the other three initiatives. The Cyber Land-Grant is "mobilizing and developing technology to serve communities" but each of the other initiatives highlight the need for technology. A Cyber Land-Grant University is the overarching goal of the other three initiatives. How can we elevate our Land-Grant Mission by putting technology at the core/foundation of what we do? This should be the question we ask as we develop our initiatives. Without a strong technology focus, we will miss the future opportunities that come our way. 

Suggestions for additional strategic initiative to support our vision to be a premier student-centered, public research land-grant university

An overarching thought that Kansas is part of the world and the global environment, so constantly thinking about Kansas and the world with regards to all of the initiatives. K-State should be an important place that connects Kansas to the greater world, geographically and topically as we prepare students for Kansas and the world and enjoy research collaboration with entities outside Kansas and outside the US.
Innovation in Research & Development -- basic research, applied research, patents, commercialization. It's like the leadership on campus is not talking with each other. Provost and VPR missions seem completely separate. Resiliency -- pandemics, political/economic disruptions, power grid/infrastructure, energy solutions, weather extremes (flooding, drought, refugees)
Convergence: Research driven by a specific and compelling problem. Convergence Research is generally inspired by the need to address a specific challenge or opportunity, whether it arises from deep scientific questions or pressing societal needs. Deep integration across disciplines. As experts from different disciplines pursue common research challenges, their knowledge, theories, methods, data, research communities and languages become increasingly intermingled or integrated. New frameworks, paradigms or even disciplines can form sustained interactions across multiple communities.
Ways to integrate the online students more. They feel the impact of the K-State family and there are many more opportunities to engage them more.
Hands on research for students to increase the workforce in research across the spectrum but especially in health
A major challenge for Kansas, the United States, and the world is to develop ecological and social systems that are resilient and sustainable in the face of unprecedented environmental changes happening at local, regional and global scales. K-State is uniquely poised to meet this challenge, with strengths and expertise in relevant areas that cross academic and disciplinary boundaries. Designing ecological and social systems that are resilient to environmental changes will require expertise in ecology, physical and social sciences, engineering, and the humanities. In addition to having expertise in each of these areas, we are located in an area of unique ecological significance (tallgrass prairie) and with a program that is internationally recognized for research on grasslands and global change. When I think about how this could be
There are major initiatives in the following that are completely ignored here: Human and animal health, both from the research and professional services side. These are lumped in with food security and biosecurity. This is poorly thought out. Numerous units are building "Big Data" and "Artificial Intelligence" programs. Uniting these efforts with Global campus is a ticket for success in an area that is exploding. Off hand, the business school, computer science, biology, plant pathology, statistics and math all have independent efforts. These should be united and given resources to grow, especially using Global Campus and with other areas that would benefit (e.g. robotics, drones and self driving vehicle groups). Huge miss by the administration on this front. Absolutely no mention of the environment. Konza? BAE efforts? Clean Energy efforts in engineering? Again, a huge miss for internationally recognized strengths that exist on this campus.
We need tevals to be done. Instructors need to send them out and students need to complete them.
Earth history is really not addressed by any other discipline other than geology, and natural resources will always be important to society. This includes not only industrial minerals and ores, but also fossil fuels. Even in a world that no longer uses fossil fuels for energy, what are today called fossil fuels (oil, natural gas and coal) will continue to be of importance as a source of petrochemicals.
As a university we need to address workforce needs. A unit that are experts in non degree modules that employers need to drive workforce development.
We must do more to focus on the non-traditional learner so that they feel welcome and not second fiddle.
Data science/ data analytics, as well as resiliency, need to be explicitly included in the strategic initiatives. As scientists in the state's Land Grant university we can't turn our backs to current burning needs.
I am excited about the prospect of invigorating our teaching and learning center, and equipping already excellent teachers to further excel. There needs to be a commitment to a "whole-faculty member" approach to teaching and learning, that develops faculty as researchers and contributors to society. No one teaches content in a vacuum, and research informs our teaching, so modernizing our CTL to include faculty excellence more generally will serve our students better than a strict teaching focus. To meet our vision of innovation in education, we must also commit to equipping every classroom with up-to-date learning technology, to include computers and projectors, but also whiteboards and furniture (desks, etc.) that support engaged-learning pedagogies. These are the types of pedagogies that equip students to be thought leaders, change makers, and yes, employees in the current political, social, and economic climate. Finally, we must train our teachers for new modalities, including online education, by giving them support and time to translate "offline" courses "online." If we do not do so, we risk losing our designation as providing excellent distance and online education. (and undermining the third and fourth initiatives)
Earth and the environment Resiliency Exploration and innovation (for any category, from earth and space exploration, to drug innovation) Water
Research. This is Kansas State's comparative advantage over every other university in the state except for KU. As mentioned above, all other aspects of our mission flow from our research. We need to continue to incentivize research and scholarly activities - from English to engineering. Putting research on the back-burner for short term gains will surely be bring about our long term demise.
Public Health. Threats to public health are the future, training a workforce to prevent and manage these threats is key to survival. Also Technology- we have to rise up and be more responsive to teaching changing tech and develop programs for students to get careers in this essential field. (Computer, data, cyber...)
no ideas
There seems to be greater competition between departments and colleges recently - possibly as a result of the new budget model (though I admit my understanding of it is limited) - that have severely hindered interdisciplinary collaboration. If we are truly going to be student-centered and play to our strengths as a research land-grant university, we have to make considerable efforts to encourage collaboration and stop the infighting between departments/colleges over students and enrollments.
-A very useful focus area would be to upgrade our shared research infrastructure. Centralized support for core facilities and instrumentation. -K-State has a few shiny new buildings with nice classrooms and labs, but an alarming fraction of our teaching spaces haven’t even been painted in decades. A major emphasis should be on upgrading classrooms and teaching labs to modern standards. Paint, furniture, classroom technology… I think this would really help with undergraduate recruiting.
I have read through all the feedback from 2017 and 2019 and no where do I see any recognition of how we need to be responsive to what students want in terms of academic offerings. At the most fundamental level that plays out as students vote with their feet and their pocketbooks. I see lots of comments about focusing on the liberal arts or agriculture without acknowledging that students are not choosing to pursue majors or those academic areas (neither in Kansas nor nationwide) at the same rates as in the past. And yet we seem to want to double down on an archaic approach of being an “Ag school” when enrollment continues to decline in those areas. While the humanities are near and dear to my heart and my academic area, there are whole academic departments at Kansas State that need to reinvent themselves. We seem to want to continue to take the arrogant stance that we know better than the educational market place on what students should be studying. Instead of continuing to mandate that students take certain classes (mostly in the College of Art and Sciences) because of a self-serving interest of the faculty in those areas, we should be creating majors and classes that the students WANT to pursue. How can we consider ourselves a student centered institution when we continue to ignore the reality that student are not choosing us. When they do choose to attend K-State they choose to take many classes (English, History, Chemistry and many others) at the community college instead of K-State. While it is easy to dismiss this reality as solely due to the fact that the community colleges offer classes as a cheaper price that seems to ignore the fact that the same students will pay a premium for classes at K-State in other areas because they see them as valuable or better serve their needs. Instead of going down a path of trying to force students to take classes at K-State we need to take a hard look in the mirror and figure out how we can make these classes more attractive so the students will want to take them at K-State. The College of Arts and Sciences has so much to offer if only they could think about themselves in a different way. It’s ironic that this college says they are preparing students for the changing landscape of an unknown future and yet the faculty in the college seem to be unable to adapt to a changing educational landscape. It is no surprise that the college of Arts and Sciences looks very similar to what it looked like 50 years ago. In contrast the College of Education has had to reinvent itself in numerous ways and while its undergraduate numbers are likely to continue to decrease, they have been able to develop innovative graduate programs to adapt to a changing landscape. When will K-State start thinking about being a “student center institution” in terms of offering classes and majors that our students want, instead of majors and classes that the faculty want?
The Arts and Sciences does not contain ONE strategic initiative yet is the largest college, has some of the strongest research programs and brings in the most external competitive grants. Where are the basic sciences recognized, including physics, biology, biochemistry, chemistry? Where are the arts and humanities recognized?
A focus on partnerships - real transfer partnerships with community colleges throughout Kansas and the region. Real partnerships with state agencies and employers for those employed adults who need further education or updates for advancement in their careers.
In order to reach Kansans and prospective students beyond our borders, we need more online and hybrid programs. The hybrid model brings students together for a short time to get to know each other, but it does not require a students uproot their family and move to Manhattan.
One thing I iterated in the president's meetings is to realize how much our traditional and non-traditional learners are committing to and investing in their education. Not just money, time away from family and other personal sacrifices. We need to recognize them and turn around and invest our time and resources into them. We need to show we care beyond graduation. We do a pretty good job on-campus of investing in students, but what are we doing when they leave?

Top priorities to be included in the updated 2025 plan

The four initiatives are fine - I would broaden a bit the aviation to include space for innovative applied science, engineering, technology programs for a variety of industries important to Kansas and the region.
If research is to be any portion of the plan, the RCM budget model needs to somehow incorporate incentives to do research. The only incentive currently is to grow Student Credit Hours which is okay except it shifts the focus completely on teaching in order to get budget dollars. If only teaching faculty is hired, research slows and we lose our research rating, don't attract quality graduate students, and everyone loses. Budget model needs to include incentives for teaching, research, and service/extension/outreach.
Enhancing and supporting relevant response in the face of disruptive global change..
Maintaining K-State's status as an R I research-intensive university.
The food systems and biosecurity efforts are a clear KSU strength, otherwise see my comments above.
Earth science.
Cyberland grant - No question! Get the State to support us. We need some folks to give to the university to make all these a reality. Share with stakeholders the vision and make them want to provide the means. Why not ask for people to support instructional designers.
Instructional Design support, technology support, Course and program development support (both online and on-campus). Required training in best practices for teaching online. Required revising and training for faculty teaching courses that have significant complaints.
Data Analytics and Resiliency. It should be stated explicitly that basic research and scholarly activity are the tools that make our work possible and we need to stay on top of them.
1. Research 2. Public scholarship and teaching 3. Innovative teaching (and support) 4. Whole-faculty member excellence training and support
Research. Conducting original research in our fields allows us to be better teachers and better extension agents for Kansans. This needs to be our top priority. If we lose sight of this, and begin offering incentives for other aspects - in how departments and colleges are evaluated, in what opportunities are given - we will cut off our nose to spite our face.
Equality to all students, fair pay, current, updated education, growing outreach to rural and KC Metro and increase scholarships to boost recruitment, including doing away with KC out of state tuition.
they are covered
• Interdisciplinary collaboration • Market (student) driven program development • Develop standards and accountability for online courses • Develop and integrate greater customization into degree programs, especially where students might have an interdisciplinary interest
Specifically related to the online innovation team: Currently, a Graduate School policy exists requiring masters students to complete a degree within six years. It is common for part-time and online students to take one class per semester, leaving very limited time to complete a graduate degree. The six year time frame to complete a degree coupled with degree programs over 33 credit hours, requires a student to take a course every semester (Spring, Summer, Fall), or at least 2 classes every academic year, which is not always possible given this population's outside responsibilities (i.e. family, full-time employment, etc).
The most useful goals are specific, measurable, incrementally achievable and realistic. The K-State 2025 vision of becoming a top 50 public research university was never particularly realistic absent some enormous cash infusion, and was too focused on the end point versus working towards incremental improvements along the way. Without that bold goal, however, K-State 2025 just collapses into amorphous nothingness. The revised mission statement is so vague and non-specific that it loses all aspirational value. I would like to see some specific, quantitative goals for the next 5 years as applied to graduation rates, research funding and other standard metrics. They should be optimistic but not outlandishly so.
There needs to be a sound financial plan that supports the updated 2025 plan. This was completely absent from the first iteration. We need to address faculty compensation. If we want to be a research institution, tenure track faculty salaries need to be on par with our aspirations. It is also critical that we come up with a plan to address all the deferred maintenance on the campus. Updates to Engineering, Architecture and Business were warranted but the other colleges need significant investment in infrastructure also. Some of the worst spaces on campus are in Ag, Education and Health and Human Sciences. Not to mention that Arts and Sciences inherited much of the space that was inadequate for the College of Business. Improving space for all colleges is especially important given that colleges are being held accountable for their enrollment and not every college has received the same investment in facilities that are critical for the recruitment of students. The RCM model rewards all the colleges the same going forward but does not address a history of differential investments of university resources resulting in some colleges having very nice spaces to show prospective students with other colleges having spaces that are detrimental to their recruiting efforts.
Appropriate inclusion of the basic sciences within at least multiple initiatives.
Relationships within and external to the university. I remember as an UG decades ago that people would say "hi" walking across campus. I don't see that now - even recently after a meeting with some cabinet members I heard a campus director say that two of the cabinet members walked past them (nearly immediately after the meeting) and turned away when she walked past. There remains a sense of unease/angst about all of the changes occurring and questions are squelched or directed to a website rather than answered face to face. New ideas and new leadership is welcome, but there seems to be a sense that knowing how we got here is dismissed as unnecessary perspectives. Not everything that has been done was a disaster and there are reasons we are where we are so before rash decisions and missteps occur perhaps observation and listening could occur. Hopefully the land -grant mission of extending beyond Manhattan will be a focus. Poverty, rural development, and underserved populations should be considered and addressed in more than speeches and text.
We need to be consistent to our Land Grant mission.
The identification of high priority majors or degrees in unique areas of growth that only K-State offers. This to me would not mean the elimination of other programs, but rather an identification, advancement, and emphasis on signature academic programs that we are uniquely positioned to advance.
Global food, health, and biosecurity

Additional general comments and suggestions

Again, more of an approach that has Kansas State as the gateway between Kansas and the larger world as a vision or mission.
The aviation focus area needs to understand and embrace the university wide strengths in this domain in order to substantiate the goal of becoming a global leader in aviation innovation and talent development. The current framework is not working as necessary to realize this goal.
As formulated above, these strategic efforts are poorly thought out. Our administrators get paid far too much to have this poor of an understanding of what the existing strengths of the KSU campus are. Some vision from both the administration with better input from faculty is urgently needed on this campus.
See above.
Cyberland grant can really put us on the map. Biggest opportunity.
A thought exercise (just for fun): What would the University look like if we completely removed colleges from the structure and instead built an infrastructure centered around programs and departments (as topic areas of study)?
Again related to the online innovation team: I think it is important to get an idea/inventory of the email communications sent to students. I commonly hear that students are not reading emails or not completing required steps necessary for graduation, which makes me wonder the number of emails and if students are being inundated with emails or not receiving the information needed. Also, determining the best method for sending announcements and offering these means via Canvas or Salesforce would also be helpful, such as the ability to text message information. It would also be helpful to review additional analytics in Canvas, such as announcement open rate and time spent on specific modules.
The academic approval process needs to be addressed. I firmly believe that the faculty should control the curriculum, but that only works if the faculty put the needs of the university and the students before their own individual interests or they interest of their academic departments/colleges. It will stifle innovation if new, creative academic offerings are killed because of petty jealously and political. The university has to be willing to evolve and be creative in ways that may be uncomfortable for the faculty.
Be more inclusive of the Arts and Sciences. It's demoralizing for those in the Arts and Sciences to not even be considered in the strategic initiatives process. How were the initial four areas decided upon?
I love K-State and, for the most part, enjoy my position and ability to support students in their goals and endeavors. My comments are meant to be interpreted as constructive.
I hope that within educational innovation, we might become the destination for graduate students seeking training on teaching and learning. I can imagine a K-State initiative that makes us the premier trainers of the next generation of teaching faculty. Graduate students and new faculty from across the nation might engage our trainings on teaching, pedagogical design, and building significant learning experiences.
We also need to look inwardly at what needs to be done, especially the most difficult and pressing problems. The time to act is now, even if it means failing forward. We need to act experimentally while making conscientious choices. Integrity needs to be at the heart of what we do as we embrace working across factions and raising the heat to inspire change. We need to do infinitely better internally, otherwise we will consistently struggle to tackle external initiatives.
Keep up the great work! :) Our university is in good hands.