52 USC Marshall professors sign letter warning of business school’s “downward trajectory”

Faculty letter to Dean Garrett

Dean Geoffrey Garrett

USC Marshall School of Business

CC: Senior Vice President Dean Grace Sosik; Vice Dean Patricia Mills; Vice Dean Rahsan Akbulut; Vice Dean Kyle Meyer; Vice Dean Sarah Townsend; CFO Janet Horan; Marshall Faculty Council

Dear Dean Garrett,

We write as tenured members of the Marshall faculty to express serious and shared concerns about the current state of the School and to request concrete participation from you and the School’s leadership. The school has proposed cutting the PhD program at the Marshall School of Business by reducing funding and operating it on a much smaller scale. These changes would place the program at serious risk of being eliminated and could have significant negative consequences for the school’s academic reputation. The proposed cuts have led to additional discussion among faculty that has made it clear to us that there are many serious concerns regarding the PhD program. Preliminary admissions data across our four MBA programs point to significant revenue shortfalls in the coming academic year. While the group acknowledges the various external factors that can shape enrollment, and that it is informed, questions have been raised about how these marketing and admissions decisions are being handled and what this means for our financial viability. It appears that waitlisted applicants to our MS programs are not being converted into admitted students at rates commensurate with market demand. We have lost many talented faculty to other institutions. Furthermore, recent resignations of senior leadership raise serious questions about whether Marshall’s academic leaders currently have the necessary authority and visibility to manage the programs for which they are held responsible. Overall, we believe these developments point to a school-wide situation that requires open, data-driven, and collective discussion that goes beyond conversations about individual cuts to programs and positions.

We believe there are clear signs of our downward trend in terms of academic reputation, commitment to excellence in research, and demonstrated academic excellence of students graduating from our programs. It appears that this downward trajectory is not based solely on environmental conditions; Many of our peer institutions appear to be responding to these pressures more effectively. This downward trajectory coincides with the centralization of decision authority and a reduction in information and consultation provided to faculty. The Marshall Faculty Council requested clarification on this issue and was informed that it was being reported. However, the general consensus among faculty is that the decision-making authority and information are not shared with those who need to do their jobs, and this is leading to a marked decline in the enrollment and quality of students at our school.

We do not believe this pattern can be addressed without substantive changes in how the School engages with its faculty with respect to budget, enrollment, and shared governance. Until now, faculty have neither been given the information nor consideration given to their input that would be necessary to make a meaningful contribution to addressing the challenges facing the school. At a recent meeting with the Faculty Council the Dean expressed disappointment when it was indicated that the faculty shared this opinion. However, the faculty feel that there has been considerable discussion of what factors are influencing Marshall externally, but limited justification for the factors that are shaping these issues internally. We therefore formally request an immediate and substantial change in approach. As a starting point, we respectfully offer a set of specific requests that we believe are the minimum necessary for responsible faculty engagement.

Budget and Revenue Transparency

1. Full budget disclosure. A written presentation of actual data for the current year’s budget, the projected shortfall for the upcoming year, revenue estimates by program, and the key assumptions underlying those estimates, including sensitivity to enrollment variations. We ask for underlying data, not summaries. While we understand that the budget has not yet been approved, it has been made clear that the long-term return of the PhD program will depend on our financial position in future years and we would like to see clarity on what items the budget is currently flowing towards.

2. Enrollment and Admission Data. Current application, admissions, yield and waitlist data for all degree programs (full-time MBA, part-time MBA, MS programs, graduate and PhD) with year-on-year comparisons. We would like to understand the rationale for current conversion decisions, particularly on waitlisted MS applicants. There have been statements that this data was publicly available and shared with people in decision-making roles such as program directors, but the feeling of many people in those positions is that they are not getting the information they are entitled to.

3. Written revenue strategy. A written statement of the school’s revenue strategy for the next two years, including concrete plans for the following: fundraising and fundraising goals, graduate admissions and yield, career placement and employer relations, executive education, and corporate partnerships. Each element should identify an accountable leader and a timeline.

4. Written expenditure plan. A written expense-cutting plan covering the entire school budget, including projected savings for each element. We note that PhD program cuts alone cannot offset the projected shortfall, and piecemeal announcements do not allow faculty to evaluate trade-offs in a meaningful way.

Governance and reporting structure

5. Review of reporting structures for revenue-critical functions. Undergraduate admissions, career services and program marketing are central to the school’s academic mission and financial health, yet currently report through the school’s business-side leadership rather than through senior academic leaders. This structure creates tension between financial goals and academic standards, especially in admissions decisions. We request (a) a written description of the current reporting structure and the rationale for it, (b) identifying which senior academic leaders have authority over admissions outcomes and standards for each program, and (c) a proposal to restructure reporting so that academic decisions on admissions quality are not subordinated to revenue targets.

6. Clarity on business-side and academic leadership boundaries. A written explanation of the scope of authority of the school’s senior business-side leadership relative to academic leadership, particularly for those functions that directly impact academic programs. Recent events show that this boundary has been slipped and faculty are not adequately involved in governance but are influenced by these decisions. There is also a feeling that if the faculty had been consulted, better decisions would have been taken and the school would be in a better position today.

Faculty consultation and advancement process

7. Communicate the school’s vision clearly. Faculty should be informed about a coherent, forward-looking strategy for the school’s trajectory. Rather than focusing on cost-cutting due to external factors, this vision should outline how USC Marshall intends to strengthen and maintain its position as a top-tier institution, including, but not limited to, investing in research, strategically recruiting and retaining top faculty, and recruiting high-caliber students. Additionally, it should also demonstrate how the school will clearly and effectively communicate these priorities to external audiences to strengthen its brand and market its value.

8. Formal faculty consultation before reductions are implemented. Meaningful consultation through the Faculty Council before decisions are finalized, not briefings after the fact. There is a feeling among faculty that this is not currently being done well enough and that faculty feedback is not adequately considered. When cuts must be made, faculty are in the best position to advise on which academic capabilities are most important to protect.

9. Regular status updates. At least monthly standing updates to the Faculty Council on budget, enrollment and the above revenue and expenditure plans by the end of the fiscal year.

10. Response Timeline. A written response to this letter, along with the information sought above and a proposed standing meeting to discuss it, will be given by May 1. The Faculty plans to discuss this response shortly to determine next steps.

We raise these points because we are committed to Marshall and because we believe our school is facing a critical moment that requires faculty involvement. We recognize the adversity facing higher education. However, these headwinds are not affecting all institutions equally. The growing gap in higher education is making elite schools relatively safe while putting mid-tier institutions under downward pressure. USC is at a critical juncture where its continued standing depends on its reputation for its commitment to research and academic excellence. We trust you share this view and look forward to your feedback.

respectfully,

(signer)

1. Milan Miric, DSO

2. Kristin Diehl, MKT

3. Jinchi Love, DSO

4. Clive Lennox, ACC

5. Nandini Rajagopalan, MOR

6. Stephanie Tully, MKT

7. Yingying Fan, DSO

8. Pat Rusmavichiantong, DSO

9. Dina Mezlin, MKT

10. Lan Luo, MKT

11. Gaurav Mukherjee, DSO

12. Mladen Kolar, DSO

13. Matteo Cessia, DSO

14. David Proserpio, MKT

15. Peer Fees, MOR

16. Omar Al Sawi, DSO

17. Adele Javanmard, DSO

18. Scott Wiltermuth, MOR

19. Leigh Toast, MOR

20. Selele Tuzel, FBE

21. Sivaramakrishnan Siddharth, MKT

22. Ayse Imrohoglu, FBE

23. Kevin Murphy, FBE

24. Mark Young, ACC

25. Joseph Nunes, MKT

26. Shane Heitzman, ACC

27. Richard Sloan, ACC

28. Cheryl Wakslak, MOR

29. Joe Rafi, MOR

30. Shantanu Dutta, MKT

31. Thomas Cummings, MOR

32. Tom Chang, FBE

33. Peter Kim, MOR

34. Jacob Bien, DSO

35. Shin Tong, DSO

36. Vishal Gupta, DSO

37. Anthony Dukes, MKT

38. Sha Yang, MKT

39. Joseph Priester, MKT

40. Jerry Hoberg, FBE

41. Selahattin Imrohoglu, FBE

42. Nan Jia, MOR

43. Max Wei, MKT

44. Mark Soliman, ACC

45. Eric Anisich, MOR

46. Arvind Bhambri, MOR

47. Lucas Schmid, FBE

48. Rodney Ramcharan, FBE

49. Sriram Dasu, DSO

50. Joao Ramos, FBE

51. Gulden Ulkumen, MKT

52. TJ Wong, ACC