I have to challenge the assertions made by Tush Nikollaj in his commentary ("NanoCollege ready, able to soar on its own," April 14). Mr. Nikollaj's primary argument for spinning off the College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering is to allow the college to grow across the state.
The fact is the NanoCollege is growing across the state while part of the broader university; it recently purchased the former Kodak building in Rochester. Spinning-off the college is not required to have university operations outside of Albany.
It is common for broad-based, competitive universities to have operations outside of its main campus. For example, Stony Brook has campuses or operations in Manhattan, at Brookhaven National Laboratory and elsewhere. Another example is Michigan State; Michigan State's main campus is in Lansing but it has operations in cities like Grand Rapids. Even the University at Albany has an East Greenbush campus and has MBA courses taught in Saratoga.
I would argue the University at Albany has a branding issue. The name, University at Albany, is misleading. Like Michigan State, the University at Albany is a major state university with operations well outside of its primary campus. Rather than spin-off the NanoCollege, why not rename or rebrand the university to emphasize New York.
Finally, Mr. Nikollaj contends spinning-off the NanoCollege is necessary to compete with universities like MIT or Harvard. He then says he is sending his daughter to the University at Albany; how is dismantling the University at Albany beneficial to anyone including his daughter?
Rebrand the University at Albany to emphasize "New York" and keep the NanoCollege as part of the university.
Patrick Flandreau
Santee, Calif.