Search News


Browse Archives

News

Lowering the Flag(ship)

October 18, 2005

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

It will no longer known as the “main campus,” but rather as “Arizona State University at the Tempe Campus.”

That may seem like a small change, but it’s a sign of the major overhaul that Arizona State is headed for. Last month, the state Board of Regents approved changes for state universities aimed at accommodating anticipated enrollment growth over the next 15 years. As part of that plan, Arizona State will open a new Downtown campus next fall, expand its Polytechnic and West campuses from 5,000 and 7,000 students, respectively, to 15,000 each.

In order to open access to more programs, students may pay tuition according to the program they enter. “You might want the education program to be lower, because teachers have lower salaries,” said Michael Crow, the Arizona State president. The changes will also mean doing away with the notion of a flagship campus, in favor of four that “each excel in a particular niche,” Crow said.

The Tempe campus, which will continue to serve about 50,000 students, will continue to be the place with large laboratories and “heavy science and engineering research,” Crow said. The West campus will emphasize “creative excellence,” Crow said, in liberal arts and interdisciplinary programs. The Polytechnic campus will specialize in applied science, and the Downtown campus will focus on public service, in disciplines like nursing, journalism and social work.

While “calculus is calculus” at every campus, Crow said, he hopes that by reducing the number of overlapping programs among the campuses, each will develop its own unique image, and the four campuses will be viewed as part of one major university, rather than as competitors. “We’re working hard to make sure we don’t have a totem pole,” Crow said.

Most of the faculty members interviewed are enthusiastic about the change. Paul Patterson, an associate professor in the Morrison School of Agribusiness and Resource Management, which moved from Tempe to Polytechnic in 1996, thinks the change can only help. “The faculty think it’s a great idea,” Patterson said, “especially those outside of Tempe. Nobody wants to be thought of as a second tier unit because of their location.”

But can an idea so firmly entrenched as the “flagship campus” ever really be removed?
George Gaither, director of the Institute of Research and Assessment at Prairie View A&M University and author of The Multicampus System in the 21st Century, has his doubts. ‘There’s always a competition problem,” Gaither said, adding that the University of California system failed to equalize campuses in the past. “It sounds good on paper, but the flagship is always ‘mother loves best.’ ”

Gaither said he thought it would be particularly hard to do away with the “main campus” image when Tempe will remain the major research center. He did add, though, that increasing the number of students at Arizona State will bring more state funding, and that that can happen even without an image overhaul.

Moving faculty members around “never works,” Gaither added. “People don’t just change easily. If you’re a chemist at Tempe, you’re going to try to convince people it’s the flagship campus.”
Some Arizona State do not want to move. George Watson is a professor in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communications, which will shift from Tempe to the Downtown campus, probably around 2008.

“I’m glad I won’t be here,” said Watson, who will retire around then. “I’ve been on this campus 36 years, and I hate the idea of commuting,” he said, adding that even the prospect of using light rail that the state is building to connect Tempe and Downtown, and which will be free for students, makes him cringe. “But most of my colleagues see it as an opportunity,” he said. “There’s a new building, and the Downtown campus is by the Arizona Republic and the [television] stations, and it’s a chance to chart our own course.”

Some faculty members who will stay in Tempe don’t expect much of a change at all, and the “main campus” idea may linger for a while. “The main campus will still have 50,000 students and the most professors,” said David Burstein, a professor of physics and astronomy. “It really doesn’t change what we do as faculty, it really just says what the campuses are, and that’s fine.”

Don Langenberg, professor of physics and electrical engineering at the University of Maryland, and former head of the University of Maryland system, hopes that the campus totem pole will disappear, but thinks the changes will do some good no matter what. He noted that two campuses in the Maryland system have thrived in part by developing niches. Although College Park is the official flagship campus of Maryland, Langenberg said, the Baltimore campus, which specializes in health disciplines, is on track to surpass College Park in terms of research funding.

And the University of Maryland University College, which is dedicated to adult education, has seen the number of course enrollments shoot from 2,500, when it was founded six years ago, to over 140,000. “However you count, it’s on a trajectory that will make it the largest institution in Maryland,” Langenberg said.

He added that he hopes the changes at Arizona State will combat the need to rank every institution and every campus, a “plague in higher education,” he said, which adds nothing to institutions’ ability to serve the public. “If you have three or four campuses, in which each is essentially equal in the eyes of the citizens that they serve,” Langenberg said, “it seems to me counterproductive to start ranking them.” He recognizes, though, that the idea of a main campus with its lesser satellites is firmly entrenched in the minds of most academics and the public.
 
Quoting a colleague, Langenberg said, “there are some problems only a funeral can fix.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments on Lowering the Flag(ship)

  • Stop making sense?
  • Posted by A.D. , GA at Mega State U on October 18, 2005 at 6:27am EDT
  • "In order to open access to more programs, students may pay tuition according to the program they enter."

    Does this mean that tuition in some programs will go up, at a slower rate than others?

    That is: many theorize that the high-demand areas (e.g., engineering) actually financially subsidize low-demand areas (e.g., philosophy).

    ASU may be a unique situation, a metropolitan campus that is growing because students are living at home to conserve costs and reduce debt loads. However, by separating disciplines, it may also just prove who's really paying the bills.

  • Posted by Me on October 18, 2005 at 8:14am EDT
  • Why is the first thing that I think when I hear about this scheme is "Hmmmm.... Multiple campuses means multiple administrative positions because each campus and its student body will have its own 'unique and special' needs." Instead of having one vice chancellor for business, you will have four vice chancellors and one system-wide vice president. But since "calculus is calculus," the magic of distance learning will mean one individual providing instruction for all campuses.

  • Posted by Chris Rasmussen at Midwestern Higher Education Compact on October 18, 2005 at 10:07am EDT
  • I believe there is merit in differentiating tuition based on the cost of delivery (e.g., education is less expensive than chemistry) the types of salaries graduates typically command, and market demand for a particular course or field of study. A problem with this, however, is the possibility that entrance to various academic disciplines and careers will be stratified by income, which would require some sort of equalization mechanism.

    I would guess that as long as the football team and other athletic squads live, train, and compete on the Tempe campus, it's always going to be the "main" campus in the eyes of most. And I don't see anything wrong with that. The California example isn't quite correct however--Berkeley and Los Angeles may indeed be the recipient of the most public attention, but look at any list of top public institutions in the US (or the world) and you'll see the University of California at San Diego, San Francisco, and to a lesser extent Irvine. Then again, until UC-Irvine wins a national championship in football or basketball, its not likely to make the Top 100 lists of more than the most diehard Anteater fans out there.....

  • Lowering the flag
  • Posted by AP on October 18, 2005 at 10:10am EDT
  • It'll be interesting to see where the president's office will be located for symbolic purposes...
    The medical school example is not appropriate here. There are plenty of situations where the medical complex has taken a life of its own--in Texas, California, and New York, for instance. But these health sciences complexes are fairly self-sustaining and don't depend on a central apparatus for support. It's another thing to move scientists away from the humanists and still pretend to offer a university education. I certainly don't see it as some model for the future.

  • Not All Peaches and Cream
  • Posted by B. Wintersteen , ASU Tempe Alum on October 18, 2005 at 10:22am EDT
  • I graduated from ASU with my undergrad degrees in 2001 and I can say that the changes are not completely welcome. They were eliminating the Sociology department, scattering it's professors to the four winds (Anthropology, Geography, etc), and shifting focus away from the social sciences due to the low income they bring for grants (generally).

    The faculty I spoke to were apprehensive at best, and not to mention that many of the buildings (especially the anthropology building) had deep significance and history and I wonder if that will be preserved under the new plan.

    Crow is self-admittedly focused on the business end of things, with Academics being secondary (Or in some cases tertiary behind other, personal, issues). It is hard to imagine that this dispersion will be good for the student body or faculty, as it will hinder interdisciplinary studies (Who is going to cross town for an anthro class?) and cross-disciplinary research.

  • Marketing to undergrads
  • Posted by Gretchen P. , Development Writer at UCSD on October 18, 2005 at 5:20pm EDT
  • I have a sophomore daughter at ASU. I have a high school senior boy who is strongly considering it, based on campus tours and visits to his sister. He's drawn to the big-campus, PAC-10, frat experience (senior boys aren't as keenly focused on their career track as we'd like), so if I were to tell him while he's filling out his application that his classes might very well be downtown, I know his perception of his campus experience will be altered (he's considering a journalism major). In other words: total turnoff. As I write this, I realize I will keep this information to myself for now.

  • Decentralizing
  • Posted by Hans Laetz on October 18, 2005 at 7:33pm EDT
  • So underclassmembers are expected to take a light-rail train across Phoenix to take a class outside thewir specialty?

    Sounds like another good reason to consider Tucson.

  • That's why God created IP-based videoconferencing
  • Posted by Bart J. , Gear-head at Large, stumbling university on October 19, 2005 at 10:32am EDT
  • "So underclassmembers are expected to take a light-rail train across Phoenix to take a class outside thewir specialty?"

    Closer inspection of story will indicate references to videoconferencing.

    VC is not a perfect solution. But compared to paying $9,000/year for room and board, it can be close enough. Few of us live in a perfect world.

  • Where's the Football Stadium?
  • Posted by Paul Wren on August 31, 2006 at 8:45pm EDT
  • That will be seen as the main campus, no matter what anyone else says.