I see that the State of Pennsylvania is developing a plan to eliminate degree programs that have low numbers of graduates in the major from within the State System of Higher Education. They are not alone as campuses all over the country reconsider the value of disciplines with low numbers of graduates. This type of thing results in panic on the quad for both faculty and students.
I can see the business rational behind such cost cutting, particularly in a State like Penna. where there are scores of State funded and quasi State funded campuses. There are at least sixteen campuses of the fourteen schools of the State System of Higher Education, the multitude of campuses of the four “State Related” schools (Univ. of Pittsburgh, Penn State, Temple University, and Lincoln University), and the fourteen State community colleges. You can’t throw a rock in Penn’s Woods without hitting a state supported campus. Should all of them offer every degree?
There will be considerable pain in this process, and I predict there will be little discussion of using the quality of product produced as a means of selecting the winners and losers. So, since I am in a trouble-making mood today (I gave a test this morning). I am going to propose a radical idea.
A statewide competition for existence.
All of this year’s graduates from each degree program will take a single or a series of standardized examinations related to the discipline. The average grade for the class will be compared from among all the programs receiving state funding. The bottom programs below a minimal threshold go. The top programs stay.
This puts educational quality first and allows programs that are doing the best job to stay around regardless of the quality of the school’s football team and other factors that may affect the size of the program. Faculty would be in the position of standing behind their product.
Well, I better go some deep breathing before I start grading those exams.
T.S. Hall
The graduate exam sounds like a great idea, IMHO! However, I can imagine that the students who have to take the test may not agree!
ReplyDeleteThis is a really sad thing that has happened. A bunch of bureaucrats are going to decide what programs to cut. It really should be up to the university to decide what it can and cannot afford. State money comes with strings attached.
ReplyDeleteI do think there is a place at the table for opinions outside the university in these decisions. Regional business interests might argue that having regional programs is important is accessing talent. In large states having programs spread out geographically might be of value to the larger goals of the state. If all the physics programs are too small and every campus eliminates their program, you now have no programs. It might be better to keep at least one in a region so everyone in that region goes to that one program, which will now be of large size. Also you might want to keep related disciplines at the same school. So one campus in a region might have all the science and engineering degree programs while another has all the fine arts degree programs.
ReplyDeleteThomas,
ReplyDeleteI agree totally with the idea of businesses offering input on university ideas. Maybe experienced business leaders could act as consultants to universities to keep departments current and attract more people to the sciences. I also like your prior idea of combining departments (like business and sciences) to create hybrids to better serve society's and student's interests.
Many programs might be eliminated, but the specialization gained by having one regional physics program (as you suggest) could make it a very powerful producer of talent. The concentration of capital, talented instructors and influence of relevant business interest would be very constructive in that case I predict.