The Balance Needed To Make A Land Grant University Successful
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
Having spent a good deal of time over the past month addressing the issues revolving around the proposed closure of the University of Nevada College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources (CABNR) there has been a lot of interaction with an array of supporters and differences of perspective have surfaced. In various post through this forum we have identified the priorities that we believe are important to Nevada farmers and ranchers and we have documented the point of view of how elements of whatever outcome need to take into account an integrity of a system that will be sustainable into the future.
Not all of these perspectives have been universally embraced. Nor should they be expected to be. While many of the supporters for a strong and viable Land Grant University have common ground on which their support is based, each have their own unique set of needs which deserve consideration.
The interests of students who are working to obtain their respective degrees have a different set of priorities than do agricultural producers who are looking to the agricultural research component for practical, science-tested information. There are also differences between different types of agricultural producers. The members of the faculty and administrative services, who are providing educational and research outputs, have their own outlook and stake in the outcome of what is carried out in the Land Grant mission as well.
The most productive approach to these differences of priorities require the reasons for the differences to be recognized and accepted -- not as a diminishment of your own perspective or a weakening of the cause -- but as legitimate differences to be expected in a structure that is by nature broad-based and diverse in the services and products sought and provided.
Understanding the funding systems used to cover the costs for education and research also is essential to figuring out why some of the way things have been structured in the fashion they have been put together. In order for the applied research to be carried out, which agricultural producers seek, there needs to be researchers to carry out the research. Likewise instructors for classes are needed to teach the courses which students are taking. If you use instructors as the research team with classroom directions which aren’t in line with the type of applied research that producers would prefer – you basically get what we’ve been getting under the current system.
From what we’ve been told by those in charge of making the current system operate, having traditional agricultural classes, which would put instructors in the classroom who could also do applied research on crops, livestock, etc. – the educational component won’t draw students, needed to make a College of Agriculture successful. So we now have a system more oriented to basic research and more appealing (according to what we’ve been told) class work of bio/molecular sciences which producers have trouble recognizing as relative to their needs.
Current range science efforts, including those connected to the research facilities at the Gund Ranch have made some improvements in connection with our state’s ranching interests and the work of some elements of the Resource Economics Department (especially those connected with the Cooperative Extension joint appointment) have been extremely useful for agricultural producers as a whole.
Other areas of research emphasis have not been as useful/practical and overall have caused a disconnect with the work being carried out and the needs of farmers and ranchers being addressed.
Establishing the balance between applied research and education which merits the recruitment of students to attend UNR will be no less challenging after the decisions for changes are finalized, although the possible restructuring and willingness of some to go along with these changes may be influenced by the perception that unmet needs will be given attention in the future. Whether the balance can be achieved to satisfaction of each area of interests is a solution still in need of discovery…it hasn’t been met with the approaches that have been taken for the past number of years, although in instances it has been better.
Because you build on the positives, those who continue to participate in the interactions will play a big role in molding the outcomes in the future which might find workable arrangements that do take care of more balanced needs.
For those who have different thoughts, reactions or comments, please provide them in the space that’s available. Getting all the identified details of needs to be included have to be provided in order for them to get into the mix…
Having spent a good deal of time over the past month addressing the issues revolving around the proposed closure of the University of Nevada College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources (CABNR) there has been a lot of interaction with an array of supporters and differences of perspective have surfaced. In various post through this forum we have identified the priorities that we believe are important to Nevada farmers and ranchers and we have documented the point of view of how elements of whatever outcome need to take into account an integrity of a system that will be sustainable into the future.
Not all of these perspectives have been universally embraced. Nor should they be expected to be. While many of the supporters for a strong and viable Land Grant University have common ground on which their support is based, each have their own unique set of needs which deserve consideration.
The interests of students who are working to obtain their respective degrees have a different set of priorities than do agricultural producers who are looking to the agricultural research component for practical, science-tested information. There are also differences between different types of agricultural producers. The members of the faculty and administrative services, who are providing educational and research outputs, have their own outlook and stake in the outcome of what is carried out in the Land Grant mission as well.
The most productive approach to these differences of priorities require the reasons for the differences to be recognized and accepted -- not as a diminishment of your own perspective or a weakening of the cause -- but as legitimate differences to be expected in a structure that is by nature broad-based and diverse in the services and products sought and provided.
Understanding the funding systems used to cover the costs for education and research also is essential to figuring out why some of the way things have been structured in the fashion they have been put together. In order for the applied research to be carried out, which agricultural producers seek, there needs to be researchers to carry out the research. Likewise instructors for classes are needed to teach the courses which students are taking. If you use instructors as the research team with classroom directions which aren’t in line with the type of applied research that producers would prefer – you basically get what we’ve been getting under the current system.
From what we’ve been told by those in charge of making the current system operate, having traditional agricultural classes, which would put instructors in the classroom who could also do applied research on crops, livestock, etc. – the educational component won’t draw students, needed to make a College of Agriculture successful. So we now have a system more oriented to basic research and more appealing (according to what we’ve been told) class work of bio/molecular sciences which producers have trouble recognizing as relative to their needs.
Current range science efforts, including those connected to the research facilities at the Gund Ranch have made some improvements in connection with our state’s ranching interests and the work of some elements of the Resource Economics Department (especially those connected with the Cooperative Extension joint appointment) have been extremely useful for agricultural producers as a whole.
Other areas of research emphasis have not been as useful/practical and overall have caused a disconnect with the work being carried out and the needs of farmers and ranchers being addressed.
Establishing the balance between applied research and education which merits the recruitment of students to attend UNR will be no less challenging after the decisions for changes are finalized, although the possible restructuring and willingness of some to go along with these changes may be influenced by the perception that unmet needs will be given attention in the future. Whether the balance can be achieved to satisfaction of each area of interests is a solution still in need of discovery…it hasn’t been met with the approaches that have been taken for the past number of years, although in instances it has been better.
Because you build on the positives, those who continue to participate in the interactions will play a big role in molding the outcomes in the future which might find workable arrangements that do take care of more balanced needs.
For those who have different thoughts, reactions or comments, please provide them in the space that’s available. Getting all the identified details of needs to be included have to be provided in order for them to get into the mix…
Posted by Doug Busselman at 4/3/2010 9:04 AM 
Categories: Agriculture
Tags: University of Nevada Nevada College of Agriculture closing Agriculture
Categories: Agriculture
Tags: University of Nevada Nevada College of Agriculture closing Agriculture
What is the role of the UNR Foundation? It seems to me that one way to save the experiment stations (Gund, Main Station, Valley Rd.Newlands Field Lab, etc.) is to do what Cal Poly and other Calif. State universities do with their farmland. They let the students lease the land and or facilities as a crop share rent, purchase the inputs and take home a % of the net earnings. This, of course, needs faculty supervision, but it could be as it is at Cal Poly, Fresno State, and Chico State Universities. In addition the Foundation can receive grant monies for applied research to be carried out on these facilities. There are new greenhouses at Valley Rd, a meat processing facility at main station farm plus outstanding and productive pasture at that facility.
As an alumnus of UNR's CABNR with an M.S., I can speak for the value of this program and what it did for my career. Where's Dale Bohmont when we need him???
Reply to this
I like Jim's comments above about Cal Poly and California State colleges' systems for using experiment stations. I think the important thing to consider is that his examples come from what have been traditionally thought of as teaching colleges. The current structure at CABNR does not give professors the leeway to spend the kind of time needed with students to have the kinds of experiential learning experiences that Jim talks about.
We need to consider the question, can a small agricultural research team really do a superb job at teaching? At very large institutions like Colorado State it seems that the result is that a highly regarded research and teaching facility can exist. Many land-grant colleges fit into this category. UNR unfortunately has a small agricultural college and the large land grant model is obviously failing in our state.
I think one way we could try to solve this is to let teaching colleges teach agriculture and have a small but effective agriculture research institute (Nevada Agriculture Experiement Station funded perhaps)that allows researchers to focus on research. Too many professors at CABNR are part extension, part research, part teaching. This results in folks who are pulled in too many different directions to cover all the needs of Nevada's agriculture producers. It is hard to do your research in the middle of nowhere in Nevada and make it back to Reno to teach class.
I wonder if anyone else thinks they received an excellent education from a so-called teaching college like the Cal State colleges?
Reply to this