Here’s the $64 gazillion question. Wouldn’t performance against state goals mean we’d need a higher percentage of valuable graduates (preferably in-state?) to remain in the state after graduation, at least as the first-order effect? What power does the University hold in effecting that, vis a vis the rest of the state? Say Dear Old State raised the ranking of the undergrad programs by 20 notches. What return accrues to the state in that scenario? How does the answer vary if the same number stay in state after graduation, compared to if 5-10% fewer stay because the elevated status affords them more opportunities elsewhere? So in short, what performance matters? Until I see all the pieces laid out rationally this is just like watching old Miss America contests where every contestant wants to work for world peace, a cure for cancer, and every puppy born to have a lush acre to play on in the suburbs.