Kansas Gov. Mark Parkinson has challenged Kansas University officials as well as members of the Kansas Board of Regents to improve the national ranking of the state’s universities.

He notes KU alumni and friends would not be satisfied with the Jayhawk football and men’s basketball teams ranked nationally in the 90s and they certainly shouldn’t be satisfied with the university academically ranked in the 90s. He called on the regents and state legislators to do what is necessary to elevate KU’s national academic ratings.

Currently, the KU football team is ranked in the nation’s top 25. The KU men’s basketball team is likely to be ranked in the top five as the season gets under way in November.

Early in his tenure as KU chancellor, Robert Hemenway said his goal was to have KU ranked in the top 25 of all state-aided schools and then, upon achieving this goal, aim for the top 25 of all U.S. universities.

Unfortunately, KU has fallen in its national academic rankings, into the 40s among state-aided institutions and in the 90s of all universities — public and private.

Of course, some at KU claim rankings really don’t mean that much and there shouldn’t be such a concern where KU stands. Fortunately, most KU faculty, students, alumni, friends AND the governor don’t share this opinion.

Using athletics as a yardstick, what does it take to be recognized as a national leader, not just an also-ran? What are some of the common characteristics of those schools which have nationally ranked football and basketball teams that compete with the athletic powerhouses of the nation?

First of all, they have excellent coaches, who can inspire, coach and recruit superior student athletes.

The coaches and their assistants are tireless recruiters. They keep track of promising young men as early as those in junior high school. They scout the country looking for talent.

The schools have excellent facilities. They must “keep up with the Joneses,” which has created a call to arms among these schools who want to compete for league and national titles.

Obviously, it takes money — a lot of money — to pay for, or at least to create, a winning program.

After a team and its university establish a substantial winning record, it becomes a bit easier to raise the money.

Why shouldn’t the same principle apply to raising academic rankings of a university — KU, for example?

First of all, there must be leadership — individuals who can inspire and have vision.

These senior officials — the chancellor, president and provost — must have the ability to lead, coach and demand high performance. Who are KU’s coaches? They should not tolerate average or mediocre performance. Basketball and football coaches will not win national titles putting up with average performances. They practice day after day to get it right and then work 365 days a year to keep their players in shape.

Has KU had this kind of demanding and inspirational leadership?

What kind of a job has KU done recruiting the best in faculty and students? In recent years, there has been considerable concern among many KU alumni, the parents of superior high school students, who seem to have been neglected by KU recruiters.

How good is KU in recruiting “top” faculty? What priority do KU officials place on recruiting?

Money is a major concern at KU, but if the school is to improve its national rankings, attract superior students and faculty, it needs money, and a lot of it.

Currently, state support for KU, as well as for other regents schools, is not sufficient to bring about positive changes in KU’s national rankings.

But with exciting leadership and visible results, the chances for greater state support are improving.

Unfortunately, KU has not presented a strong story to state legislators and, consequently, the lawmakers have been able to get by without too much public protest in not funding KU and other schools to the level they deserve.

Private fiscal support has been good, but again, without inspirational leadership, vision and excellent communicators, a capital campaign to raise badly needed dollars has had to be postponed.

Just as athletic teams need excellent facilities, so does the university’s academic and research side. How KU measures up in its facilities compared to those Big 12 schools with higher academic rankings is questionable. But, again, it takes money to build quality facilities that help attract superior students and faculty.

• • •

Cheating in athletics is a major concern and certainly can and unfortunately does play a role in the success of some teams. When such instances have been detected, it is important the guilty are punished.

It’s difficult to know to what degree cheating takes place on the academic side of a school such as KU, but when and if it does occur it should be dealt with by strong public action. Plagiarism and other wrongs should not be tolerated, whether among junior faculty or senior officials.

• • •

An interesting “ranking” situation exists in Kansas City with the KU Hospital and KU School of Medicine. KU Hospital currently ranks in the top five nationally of all teaching hospitals while KU medical school is ranked in the 60s. This situation has been noted by several senior state officials with some wondering why there is such a disparity. What role does leadership and vision play in this situation?

KU Hospital leaders clearly have found the right answers while KU Medical School leaders seem to be struggling. Something needs to be done to improve the school’s national ranking.

• • •

New KU Chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little has an opportunity to make a significant difference in the academic accomplishments on Mount Oread. However, she will need the help and support of those genuinely concerned about the excellence of the institution.

Kansas regents are asking for additional funding for the schools under their jurisdiction. It will be interesting to witness the effectiveness of Chancellor Gray-Little in how she presents the school’s needs to state legislators.