Comments on A University Without Physics and Philosophy?

• Outraged Instructor
• Posted by PS on February 7, 2007 at 8:25am EST

• The Philosophy Dept. has 4 faculty members and 19 students, or almost 5 students per instructor. No wonder the Philosophy Dept. Chair is "outraged." If someone wanted to take away a teaching that required little work and effort - and with no evidence of learning or results - from me, I would also be outraged! I would not be surprised if these professors are also the ones who complain about budgets and other administrative decisions, yet declined offers to get involved in campus-wide processes and offered no creative solutions of their own. Yet another example of how professors care little about learning or students and more about creating an environment that meets their personal and professional needs. Sorry - colleges exist for students, not so you can have a job that ends at 3pm everyday with Friday afternoons off.

• PSS
• Posted by Kevin F on February 7, 2007 at 9:00am EST

• Bravo on your calculations, PS. But perhaps you would have benefited from the critical thinking skills, the discipline of close reading that a philosophy course would have provided. See above: "[Schrader] said that philosophy always attracts a small number of majors but that many students in other programs take philosophy classes." And plenty of faculty have positions that require that they be in office, in class, in library, in meetings, well beyond 3 pm each day (yes, that includes weekends and Fridays as the work can't be neatly confined to a regular schedule), and well before.

• A Common Mistake
• Posted by Dean Rich on February 7, 2007 at 9:00am EST

• The previous comment about "short working hours" and small classes is really deceptive, and likely to be wrong. The Physics folks had 30 sections on the schedule at ISU, including topics and special classes (8 of which had zero enrollment), but they also taught 385 students in general education and majors courses, with students in 22 section. Some of the larger sections had 34, 41, and 40 students in them, which is really challenging in physics. The point is that the number of majors in a department doesn't exhaust the contribution of the department to the university. Students take general education. At my university, even Athletic Training students have to take physics--it's an important part of understanding biomechanics. Nursing majors have to take physics!

  Again, the philosophy faculty had 13 sections of classes ranging from introduction to philosophy through ethics; 12 of those had students, and the department served a total of 290 students.

  So let's remember: departments contribute to the university in more ways than just through the number of majors enrolled. If you take away a program, you may find yourself with a ripple effect across the system you hadn't counted on.

• Bring on the Hemlock
• Posted by R on February 7, 2007 at 9:00am EST

• PS offers this story as an example of what's wrong with certain sectors of academe, but he merely asserts that these philosophy professors leave work at 3 pm every day and take Fridays off. That's unfair. He also ignores the claim in the article that the size of the major does not indicate how many students are actually taking the department's classes. That's unfair. He suggests that the faculty offer "no evidence of learning or results" but he does not appear to have any evidence to make this assertion (has he looked at the vitae of these instructors? Their syllabi? The accomplishments of their students?). That's unfair too. The language of "learning and results" also makes me wonder whether this writer exemplifies the very trend that is worrisome in this story, the idea that "learning and results" means training for jobs (hence the writer's pick of philosophy rather than physics to criticize, since the latter still seems more results oriented). This point of view is not unfair, just short-sighted, dehumanizing and bad for democracy. Finally, it is odd to make the gold standard what students want ("colleges exist for students"), as this writer does. I thought it was leftists who coddled students and ceded authority. But the writer doesn't sound like a leftist. Might I suggest that maybe professors do their job by leading intellectually and moving students along to new points of view (you know, kinda like Socrates) and that institutions and the public should support this?

• Biased article
• Posted by Hoosier Prof on February 7, 2007 at 9:01am EST

• I enjoy IHE immensely, but I'm disappointed in the reporting on this article. This is a non-story that has been made to look like a major assault on science education. Surely Mr. Thacker could have found someone else to interview besides two of the faculty who have the most to lose? I could have written their statements for them, they are so predictable.

  Here are the facts: ISU is ending its degree programs in some fields that are underenrolled. Students who wish to take physics or philosophy courses can still do so; they just cannot major in them. Would you want to major in something that was taught to you by TWO professors?? I'd be bored to tears by the end of my required coursework.

  Over the past couple of years, all public colleges in Indiana have been asked to define their core teaching strengths. In my neck of the woods, we call this public accountability. And just for the record, my own school has gone through a similar evaluation process. When we found a few degree programs with lopsided faculty/student ratios, the faculty with the most to lose rolled up their sleeves and started paying attention to recruitment, admissions, enrollment and grants. So far, the numbers are up and everyone is behaving maturely.

• Posted by MM on February 7, 2007 at 9:20am EST

• That the majors may be dropped does not imply that courses in philosophy and physics will not be offered. The argument that a university will be bereft of philosophy or physics without majors in those areas reflects more rhetoric than logic.

• What’s The Big Deal
• Posted by Frizbane Manley on February 7, 2007 at 9:30am EST

• There are all of these schools about the country (I’m not inclined to refer to them as colleges or universities) that, for many, many years were there for the purpose of training teachers ... and many of them had curricula and requirements that seemed to be based on the notion that teachers should be educated people. They were called normal schools.

  Sometime in the 1970s all of these schools discovered almost overnight that teacher education was passé and they were remarkably positioned to be training business functionaries (I will resist the temptation to call them business leaders). And by then, education seemed to be in decline, especially in comparison to training. Indeed, the need for general education practically everywhere was a desperate attempt to counter students voting with their feet ... and those feet were taking them very far away from “what’s good for them.” Well, we couldn’t let that happen; we had to do something to pull them back in line. Ergo, general education.

  So really, let’s have more business ... and women’s studies ... and Black studies ... and physical therapy ... and kinesiology (a euphemism for phys. ed.) ... and communications ... and all of that stuff. The list is only limited by the imaginations of academics. And you know, in the scheme of things, the study of philosophy and physics turns out to be fairly unimportant ... and when it comes right down to it, no one really needs any mathematics beyond college algebra and the ubiquitous introductory statistics course ... and every department already has its own quite brilliant boy-wonder teaching statistics.

  What I thought was interesting about the Indiana State “University” decision-makers was their choice of departments to eliminate. Philosophy and Physics are out ... but African and African American Studies, Cummunication, Criminology, Family and Consumer Sciences, Geography, Social Work and Social Studies Education, and a whole raft of Pre-Something Programs are apparently untouchable.

  My favorite is Family and Consumer Services (a euphemism for home ec) that has a faculty of ten and more programs than you can shake a spatula at, e.g. ...

  http://www.indstate.edu/fcs/FCS.htm

  Needless to say, I have no qualms at all about ISU’s decision to zap philosophy and physics. After all, that stuff is fairly difficult for your average guy ... and, really, it’s not all that relevant for an employee of Enterprise Rent-a-Car. But to answer your question, “Is it really a university?” Well, no. I think that to be consistent with truth in advertising, ISU should change its name to Indiana State Institute of Occupational Studies, and graduates should receive a “Certificate of Achievement in Whatever” Makes sense to me.

• An Easy Decision
• Posted by Cal on February 7, 2007 at 9:30am EST

• To say that Indiana State is a University without physics and philosophy is a ridiculous statement. There will still be faculty members to serve the other programs with their needed philosophy and physics courses. They are simply discontinuing the majors in these areas. The students now in those majors will be able to finish their degrees, but no new students can major in these areas. I agree that this is a non-news story. It is simply a savvy university making decisions that are rational. I view with chagrin the fact that so few students are choosing to major in these fundamental fields, but such is the nature of a free society.

  Have a happy day!

• Correction
• Posted by R on February 7, 2007 at 9:35am EST

• Hoosier Prof. asserts that the physics department at ISU only has two full-time faculty and so is not really a viable major. Actually, it has five full-time faculty posted on its website. It has two tenured and three assistant professors. Given what the website says they study, I doubt students would be bored by them. If I could be a student again, I'd take courses with these instructors--if only I could do the math!

• The Devil Made Me Do It
• Posted by Frizbane Manley on February 7, 2007 at 10:20am EST

• I wondered, “Who is this Karen Schmid, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, who is apparently calling the shots for curriculum development at Indiana State and is their apologist for dumping the philosophy and physics departments?” So I visited her web-site ...

  http://www.indstate.edu/fcs/newweb/facprof_schmid.htm

  Ah, yes, Ph.D. in Family Social Science. Ah yes, she has published and presented in assessment, experiential learning, and institutional distinctiveness.

  "Hmmm," I thought, “I wonder what credentials the VPAA brings to the job?” So I looked for the web site of C. Jack Maynard, Ed.D, but I couldn’t readily find it. I did discover that he is on the faculty of the Department of Educational Leadership, Administration, and Foundations ...

  http://elaf.indstate.edu/faculty/faculty.htm

  Well, that convinced me. What’s wrong with those whiners in the departments of philosophy and physics?

• Posted by Lisa on February 7, 2007 at 11:21am EST

• It would be a very boring world if everyone was a Business, Liberal Arts or Communications major. Those 1800 students in those 107 majors add diversity to the school and different ways of thinking. If these majors are eliminated what other options do the future students have? Where else could they attend? No students would be able to discover their passion for Philosophy or Physics and join them.

• Do the reading AND the math
• Posted by Hoosier Prof on February 7, 2007 at 11:21am EST

• R., you misread my statement. I described a hypothetical scenario for a student, not the physics department.

  So what's your point, anyway? I think you will find that this forum is fairly unfriendly to posters who float around shooting down other comments without making original contributions of their own.

• “Shooting Down Other (sic) Comments” ...
• Posted by Frizbane Manley on February 7, 2007 at 2:55pm EST

• I suppose one could find someone who is more thin-skinned than Hoosier Prof ... but you’d have to work pretty hard to do so.

  I’ll answer for R. His point is quite obvious. After examining the credentials and interests of the physics faculty at ISU, he is inclined to believe that if he studied physics under their tutelage, he would not be “bored to tears by the end of [his] required coursework.”

  And if R “misread” Hoosier Prof’s first post, so did I. The professor wrote ...

  “Here are the facts: ISU is ending its degree programs in some fields that are underenrolled. Students who wish to take physics or philosophy courses can still do so; they just cannot major in them. Would you want to major in something that was taught to you by TWO professors??”

  I’ll have to say that his transition from “Here are the facts” to hypothetical ruminations was lightening fast. It blew right past me.

  On the other hand, I’m certainly relieved to be in the presence of a scholar like Hoosier Prof. Otherwise, how would I know when “everyone is behaving maturely.”

• Posted by R , I Stand By the Correction on February 7, 2007 at 2:55pm EST

• Hoosier Prof.'s paragraph in which he evokes a major with two instructors begins "Here are the facts." Nothing signaled later in the paragraph that a hypothetical was now being invoked. Since facts were instead referred to, I assumed the number "two" was pulled from the two tenured faculty in physics referred to in the article. My point in this post was that the departments involved were not as small as the paragraph implied (if this was a hypothetical what's the relevance to departments that are not in fact that small, anyway?). And this is important because the small size of the department was offered as a reason for thinking they could not function successfully (i.e. they would be "boring")

  As for original comments, I don't know if the point can be called original--may people have made some version of it, here and generally-- but please see above under "bring on the hemlock."

• Posted by Larry on February 7, 2007 at 3:01pm EST

• I’m with Manley. It all comes down to what you want your alums to do. If you want them to be doctors or lawyers or professors, they gotta take physics and philosophy. If you want them to work behind the counter somewhere (or in a call center) they can take home ec all they want. So long as the school is honest about its low expectations and opinions of its students, they can do what they want. I find it somewhat hard to believe that someone with the “credentials” of Schmidt is really making these decisions, but stranger things have happened!

• Programs vs. Courses
• Posted by Chris Rasmussen , Director of Policy Research at Midwestern Higher Education Compact on February 7, 2007 at 3:01pm EST

• I wonder if what's been lost in this discussion is whether Indiana State intends to erase all vestiges of physics and philosophy from the institution, or if it will simply cease granting majors in those fields. I can't imagine that the university would cease to teach any courses in philosophy or physics, as this would pretty much doom their pre-med, pre-law, and science education programs. Surely the leaders of ISU aren't that short-sighted.

• Benefit?
• Posted by Jonathan Dresner on February 7, 2007 at 3:01pm EST

• What I don't understand, after reading this, is what BENEFIT the university is supposed to get from closing off majors or consolidating departments if they're not also shedding faculty and course offerings.

  I've heard the "too many programs/options/fields" argument before, but I've never heard a good explanation for the benefits of giving up.

• Falling Further Behind
• Posted by Tom on February 7, 2007 at 3:01pm EST

• Despite the fact that the news here might be sensationalistic, it is still a shame to see a university drop two fundamental majors from their curriculum.

  Physics is the backbone of our society, our technology, and ultimately our economics. Philosophy is the backbone of critical thinking, where we obtain the wisdom to apply the knowledge learned in science.

  Doing without these two majors, while at the same time including so many "basket-weaving" soft majors (that are practically, though not completely, useless), will only help accelerate the United States toward becoming a third-world country, no longer at the technological or economic forefront of the world.

  This may sound a little sensationalistic as well, and it is probably a worst case scenario. But it is a fact that the hard sciences are what drive the economic health of our country, not "Family Studies."

  Do you want to start living in a third-world country? I thought not.

• Posted by JH on February 7, 2007 at 8:25pm EST

• According to the article, the plan is to eliminate the philosophy and physics majors, not to disband the departments entirely. It is important to note this distinction, as many comments have done. But eliminating the major will have the (presumably unintended) consequence of making it much more difficult to hire qualified faculty to teach the introductory classes that the university (presumably) will want to continue offering. Teaching the same introductory classes over and over again gets real old real quick. If you want to retain good faculty, you need to give them the opportunity to grow and develop as scholars and teachers--and that happens by letting them teach the advanced classes, which you can't offer if you don't have majors who are qualified to take them.

• Benefit? (echo)
• Posted by James D. , Professor on February 8, 2007 at 5:45am EST

• I think Jonathan Dresner raises the key point. If eliminating the majors is a prelude to eliminating the faculties, then it's obvious what the benefit is (saving money) but then it is, by general agreement, an outrageous plan. If there is no plan to eliminate the departments, then there is no cost saving and nobody seems to be able to say what the benefit is supposed to be.
  This leads me to suspect that the plan really is to eliminate the physics and philosophy faculties.

• ISU, Physics and Philosophy, and What's Needed
• Posted by RaS on February 8, 2007 at 5:45am EST

• Some commenters to this article fall into the lamentable trap of assuming that certain non-science fields (Family Studies, Communication, etc.) are the ones that should be expendable while certain traditional fields (Physics, Philosophy) should remain unscathed in any program reduction effort based on whether the programs contribute to the production of lawyers, doctors, engineers, and the like. They even scoff at supposed lesser occupations such as managing car rental services. These are some of the exact elitist values that provide the public with its fodder to believe that academe is too far beyond them. Most people in the public are not and will not be doctors and lawyers and engineers; many will be small business managers and teachers and ministers and agency directors and so on. A university must be equipped for providing the studies suitable to preparing the most capable people for all such endeavors. Doctors aren't going anywhere without their Lexus providers. And more doctors I know could use one more course (if they ever had even one) in interpersonal communication than most service managers I've met. Some of the most difficult people in the world to understand in any venue are engineers--not because of their advance thinking and problem-solving skills, but for the lack of ability to communicate effectively outside the formula and schematic. I'm not inclined to see a university jettison its physics and philosophy programs, but neither is it sensible to defend these fields by attacking he legitimacy of newer, "softer" fields that lend to no specific professional career. Learning more about the human condition, how to live and relate in it, and hopefully to improve it are among the most important areas of education any of our universities can offer. And a good dose of physics and philosophy won't hurt, either.

• Agreeement w/ Chris R.
• Posted by C. Shipman on February 8, 2007 at 5:45am EST

• I agree with Chris R. that an important oversight seems to have happened within most of these comments, and that is the fact that the university is not eradicating the subjects of physics and philosophy altogether; rather, only the opportunity for students to major in those particular subjects.

  According to the article, “Schmid said that students could still pursue an interest in both disciplines by majoring in liberal studies with a concentration in physics or philosophy.” The university leaders would surely have the foresight to know that these courses are vital to the foundation of other well-enrolled or well attended programs within their academic offerings and they bring diversity to the pursuit of intellectual challenge.

  C. Shipman, Ed. D. student – AU

• Posted by A. G. Rud at Purdue University on February 8, 2007 at 5:46am EST

• Amen, JH. Without advanced courses to offer and develop, much less a major or a graduate program, the intellectual life of a faculty member is diminished.

• here is your does of elitism, sir
• Posted by Larry on February 8, 2007 at 7:30am EST

• RaS, “These are some of the exact elitist values that provide the public with its fodder to believe that academe is too far beyond them.” I suppose you were referring to me. Yes, I am an elitist. I don’t want schools that I am associated with to do anything but train the doctors and lawyers (as a proxy for “leaders”) of tomorrow. You don’t need to go to school to run an Enterprise. In fact, Enterprise has its own training program, which is devoid of Kant, Hagel, and I don’t even think teaches you how to add two vectors.

  “Interpersonal communication” is overrated. In fact, I do not talk to people who mention the term, because it is generally used to obscure their actual position.

  But, if you want your girls to study Home Ec (in my opinion, this is quite a sexist major, too). Go ahead. Everyone I know will go to real schools and have real majors. Everyone I know will go to real schools which are filled with actual intellectuals, not people teaching girls “Home Ec” or “Grinning” (or whatever the politically correct terms are now.)

• Behind the Curtain
• Posted by DavidA on February 8, 2007 at 8:05am EST

• Interesting thread; programs vis. courses or majors; faculty hours; core issues; elitists and populists, even ad hominem attacks on folks because they have an EdD. But there is an elephant in the room. At what point did accrediting agencies arrogate to themselves the abililty to tell a college or university they are teaching the wrong things, that they have to quit teaching things they have chosen to do. What business is it of an accreditor if a university chooses to keep a major even if there is only one student in it if the university believes in its value and in the worth of that student's goals. (A funding agency or legislature maybe has a legitmate interest, but not an accreditor.) When did we let slip away the instutional freedom to decide what to teach and how to teach (Sweezy) to mere accreditors. Another example of the replacing learning with assessment and doing with measuring. ISU could certainly make such a decision about programs on its own initiative, but not because the accreditor tells them to. ISU should have gotten its back up and told the accreditors that it was none of their business what ISU chooses to teach and what students chose to study.

• Shooting the Messenger?
• Posted by Sam Hamtpon on February 8, 2007 at 8:25am EST

• Having been involved with ISU some time ago (I have long since left the institution, as I understand several have in the last few years due in part to a quite vitriolic environment there on the part of faculty), I am sure that several of the above statements are statements from those jilted by these decisions--notice the attack on the Vice President of Academic Affairs and his staff, implying for some reason that they are not as intellectually gifted as those in philosophy and physics. Elitist? Perhaps. Focused on attacking the messenger? Definitely. Typical of the hostile, dysfunctional environment there? Ditto.

  The fact is that both of the majors involved had been struggling for years to increase enrollments, most notably because they did very little with regard to rolling up their sleaves, getting out there, and working with students to attract them to these fields.

  The faculty senate, faculty within ISU's colleges, and several other organizations had been consulting with one another to make decisions about which programs had to be cut, and the process involved many different things to consider. Documents on the ISU site outline this process.

  The North Central Association had warned ISU many years ago that it had too many programs with low enrollment, and that at the next visit (if my memory serves me correctly) it expected to see progress in this area--an ominous statement from an organization known for its lilly-like "suggestions" for improvement. It is not as though both departments saw this as a surprise; they saw this coming years ago. And they did little, if anything about the problem; at a minimum, they did little that succeeded.

  Moreover, my reading of the document written by the provost does not say that faculty will be fired, but only that these degree programs will be discontinued. This might save them money, but more importantly it appears that physics and philosophy courses will still be available.

• Get real
• Posted by C. Bigsby on February 8, 2007 at 8:50am EST

• The real elephant -- there are too many colleges, chasing too few students. This is economically unsustainable, without taxpayer subsidization. And taxpayers are unhappy.

  If Philosophy is doing such a great job -- let them get private funding.

  As for Physics -- as long as they bring in $$$ from fields such as pre-med and pre-engineering -- they will always be OK.

• Accreditors
• Posted by Dean Rich on February 8, 2007 at 9:24am EST

• DavidA writes: At what point did accrediting agencies arrogate to themselves the abililty to tell a college or university they are teaching the wrong things, that they have to quit teaching things they have chosen to do. What business is it of an accreditor if a university chooses to keep a major even if there is only one student in it if the university believes in its value and in the worth of that student’s goals. (A funding agency or legislature maybe has a legitmate interest, but not an accreditor.) When did we let slip away the instutional freedom to decide what to teach and how to teach (Sweezy) to mere accreditors.
  The “mere accreditors” are in fact peer reviewers from institutions similar to ISU—-that’s who the front-line visitors from the Higher Learning Commission are, in every case. Unless someone can show you what the visiting team actually said in its report to the institution, you will not know for sure what language they used. On three different visits—-1980, 1990, and 2000—-the visiting team observed that significant numbers of ISU programs had low enrollment. The team report (http://www.indstate.edu/acad-aff/caac/2003-04/nca_comp_visit_rprt.pdf) indicates that the Indiana Commission for Higher Education—-the authorizing body for public higher education—-“has identified the need to evaluate the resources allocated to low enrollment programs offered by the state’s public institutions,” the team visit comments.

  On the following page, it makes clear that it is the Indiana Commission which has established a “Low Enrollment Program Initiative,” with a criterion of ten or fewer graduates from a program in a five-year period. The HLC team report adds that in 80 baccalaureate programs at ISU, fewer than half graduated at least ten per year in the past three-year period.
  The HLC accreditors then add that “the university must give the highest possible priority to the implementation of processes to redirect the use of resources historically allocated to low enrollment programs so that these resources can be reallocated to support the achievement of the high priority goals of the new strategic plan.” In other words, the visit team of accreditors suggests that the university must consider how it should best use its resources to accomplish its goals—-goals the university set, not the accreditors, and by means the university must choose, not the accreditors.

  If there's an elephant in the room, it's more the lack of process which has allowed the university to avoid making hard choices about programs for more than 20 years.

• Philosophy at Indiana State U.
• Posted by Rocco Gennaro , Professor at Indiana State University on February 8, 2007 at 11:55am EST

• Well, my name is Rocco Gennaro, Interim Chair of Philosophy at Indiana State University. As embarrassing as it is, it is good that this is being made more and more public, beyond Terre Haute. I've done what I can to make many aware of it both inside and outside of ISU. It is incredibly aggravating and time consuming. Here are some additional facts. First, there is no question that virtually everyone, outside our administration, understands just how this move to eliminate the PHIL and PHYSICS majors would hurt the reputation of the entire university. Second, the Task Force in question did NOT recommend our elimination; this just came recently from the Provost's office, despite the Task Force recommendation to the contrary. (Karen Schmid was a co-chair of that Task Force.) Third, we're teaching 388 students this semester between the four of us (no adjunct help at all); we have 20 majors right now. (This is for those who don't understand the difference, please get this straight!!) Fourth, this move will save little money unless or until ISU does not replace any faculty member who leaves or retires, which is most certainly the inevitable next move. We do have one pre-tenured faculty and one nearing retirement -- can you figure out what's next? Fifth, there are vitually no 4-year universities without a philosophy program (i.e.major), or at least some kind of combined philosophy, humanities, and religion program. (We ARE alone there, and, if we are not alone, the list is very short and not one that we should want to be on.) We are already short staffed compared to other peer institutions. The Humanities Dept here at ISU (which taught mostly religion courses) has itself been retired out of existence over the past 15 years, also against our objections. We have been trying to continue to offer a couple of Religion courses. Sixth, I find it hard to believe that any external pressure to reduce ISU's number of majors is meant to include Philosophy or Physics, which are the only majors we offer in our current stand alone departments. I have been in direct contact some of the organizations/commissions in question. Seventh, the number of our majors has increased in recent years. Finally, such a move could also be professionally damaging to department members who deserve better treatment after all we have put into our careers here. We publish quite a bit, have good teaching records, etc., though, as most in the profession realize, it is not so easy to move and keep tenure... I will do all in my power to prevent this from happening; I couldn't live with myself or face others in my profession if I didn't. We are willing to combine departments here at ISU, but losing our major (and who knows what else) is entirely different. Any support is appreciated. The Executive Director of the APA has already sent a letter to our Provost. I'll stop there. Rocco Gennaro

• Posted by anon-philo , Universities and Missions at ISU on February 8, 2007 at 12:31pm EST

• 1) I have a vested stake here, 'cause I'm one of the 4 philosophers at ISU.
  2) The real elephant in the room is about what a Universities "Mission" is, and that ties to both student enrollment and state funding. The Provost said he believes the Indiana Commission on Higher Education is going to come out with a report this summer demanding that every Indiana public University develop a "unique mission." If ISU decides to go back to being a Normal School or a Pre-Professional School or something like that, as it once was long ago, then it might (maybe) make sense to axe the philosophy and physics majors. Rose Hulman Technical Institute here in Terre Haute doesn't have a philosophy program, but it also doesn't claim to offer a liberal education, or to be a "university" or to be a Ph.D. granting state research institution. The worry that other professors, and accreditors, and well people other that us Physicists and Philosophers have, is that this is trying to pre-decide what the Universities mission is going to change into. As long as we are getting lots and lots of money from the state to provide overall university-style education to the people of Indiana, and the state considers us a research institution as well, it looks like we need to stick to that mission, and if ISU or the State is going to change our mission to cope with new economic realities, then so be it, but then lets talk honestly about what our new mission is going to be.
  3) How can we offer doctorates in philosophy with a straight face if we can't even afford to offer bachelors in philosophy?
  4) I think that a little bit of philosophy is helpful for elites and normal folk and lots of types of folks, for nurses, and real estate professionals, and Phys. Ed. types and all sorts of people, but that only a few are going to have the right temperment and interests to benefit from a whole major in philosophy (and most philosophy majors double major in philosophy and something else.) But people don't often know if a philosophy major is going to be right to them until they have taken a bunch of classes in college and tried things out. Even if we become a school that primarily focuses on training teachers, there will be a couple of people that will want to be education/philosophy double majors if the option is availible to them. Right now the philosophers here spend the bulk of our effort teaching gen ed intro classes, for students that will take (and benefit from) 1 course in philosophy and never take another, and only a fraction of our time on our few majors and minors, and this is normal for institutions in the 5000-20,000 student range. (And yes we do work 9-5 all the time, except when we work overtime, I got home at 7:30 last night). Maybe our institution won't be able to afford small majors like ours if it changes it's mission, but we seem pretty central to the universities current mission.
  5) If I really thought they would keep teaching gen. ed philosophy classes long term after removing the major, I wouldn't be so annoyed. (And I'm annoyed not scared, I suspect my job security depends far more on how much I get published in the next few years than it does on the fate of my department or major or the options ISU's students get long term). But the problem is when the Humanities dept. was retired out of existence, they just stopped offering most of the gen. ed. classes despite them being full at the time. The students WANT to take a course or two of humanities and a course or two of philosophy (and I believe physics in in very much the same boat) even if they don't want to major in it. But ISU just doesn't have a good track record of continuing to offer courses after a major has been shut down and a department dissolved (and the Physics and Philosophy departments are both fighting hard to be absorbed into a larger department rather than outright dissolved at the moment).

  Universities make hard choices on program prioritization all the time, there is nothing wrong with that. Part of what hurts is that we have had a multi-year process of trying to prioritize our programs, and the faculty and deans made very different recommendations than the Provost. But when you make lots of prioritization decisions all at once because you've put it off for years, you are often, in effect re-negotiating the mission, and the universities overall direction, rather than just the fate of a few programs. ISU needs to think about its mission, and maybe even take the unpalatable line that we can no longer afford to offer a full university-style education, but should focus on our many pre-professional programs instead. But if that is our ultimate decision, we need to revise our mission and our advertising, and there will be lots of other unpalatable consequences of such a decision.

  There is nothing wrong with an institution of higher learning without a philosophy major, Rose-Hulman Technical Institute which focuses on training engineers, is a fine local example, the question is if such an institution should call itself a "University" and that's not as clear-cut.

  Thank you for reading my thoughts

• Posted by Larry on February 8, 2007 at 1:50pm EST

• I wonder how the provost will feel when law schools start flagging applications (as they often do) because they know that such a school puts more emphasis on home ec then it does on physics and philosophy. While I think that the provost probably thinks that philosophy is impractical, and physics is “tough” she has done irreparable harm to the students who will now have a black mark on them for life.

• Blah, Blah, Blah ... Blah, Blah
• Posted by Frizbane Manley on February 8, 2007 at 3:01pm EST

• Since I – and apparently Larry – are the elitists who are being chastised by more than a few respondents to Mr. Thacker’s article, please allow me to answer several critiques.

  First, I rue the day young academics-to-be started taking those awful courses in “critical thinking” and decided they could recognize ad hominem arguments even where there were none to see.

  That being the case, I am the one who thought there may be a connection between the perspectives of the ACADEMIC leaders of ISU and the University’s decision to eliminate its majors in Philosophy and Physics. Not that I think it matters one iota at ISU, but I do think it’s just a tiny bit odd that the complete list of research interests of the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Vice President for Academic Affairs – and I take Ms. Schmid and Mr. Maynard to be both the academic and intellectual leaders of the University -- are Assessment, Experiential Learning, Institutional Distinctiveness, Accreditation, Professional Development, and Teacher Education Policy. Wow!

  Granted, that “Wow!” pegs me as an elitist, but, I can’t help thinking the research interests of Ms. Schmid and Mr. Maynard must shed some light on the culture for learning that IS Indiana State University.

  Oh, by the way, DavidA, I reread the posts to this article and I did not see a single attack on anyone on the basis of that person having an Ed.D. Did you make that up?

  Second, I am the one who suggested “... it [philosophy and physics] is not all that relevant for an employee of Enterprise Rent-a-Car.”

  In fact, I have had more than a few students [in my statistics, management science, and operations management courses] who have graduated and gone right to work for Enterprise ... and I have written letters of recommendation for several of them. In fact, Enterprise has an excellent training program. But I can assure you that a bright, energetic, articulate high school graduate whose knowledge of philosophy and physics is based on, say, a half-dozen viewings of “Star Wars” can have a very successful career at Enterprise Rent-a-Car. And what’s wrong with that?

  Finally – and I know this is not a completely accurate picture of the situation – there are generally six categories of post-secondary institutions in the U.S. There are the community colleges (e.g, Northern Virginia Community College), the elite universities (maybe 30-40 of them, including the University of Virginia), the elite university wannabes (perhaps 150 of them, including Virginia Tech), a number of first-rate vocational training universities, primarily focusing attention on business (e.g. Bentley College) or engineering (e.g., Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute), a very large number and assortment of liberal arts colleges, all exhibiting a general commitment to “educating” students (they run a gamut more extensive than I’m willing to address, but they include, for example, Evergreen State College and Williams College), and then there are hundreds of so-called “comprehensive” universities that try to “do it all” (e.g., ISU, Northern Arizona University, Western Washington University, Troy University, UT-Pan American, and the true national football champion this year, Boise State University).

  In my opinion, not many students are going to “Comprehensive” University (CU) to get an education ... they’re going there because (1) it’s there, (2) it’s inexpensive, (3) all of their friends are going there and it’s expected of them too, and (4) someone has promised them that after four years at CU studying Criminology, or Kinesiology, or Management Information Systems or Family and Consumer Sciences or Social Work or Physical Therapy or Social Studies Education, etc., etc. they will be employable ... better than that, they will actually have a job that includes medical benefits.

  Make no bones about it, CU is a vocational school much like its sister community colleges except that (1) it has four-year programs and at least a few master’s degree programs, (2) it has dorms, and (3) its claim to be a “real” university is based on the fact that it drags its students, screaming and kicking, to general education course. And forgive me friends but the accrediting agencies that “certify” CU are bureaucracies – much like the NCAA – that are, at best, making an extremely small positive contribution at the margin.

  If CU – or to be more specific, if ISU – decides to eliminate its majors in philosophy or physics or even if it decides to eliminate its major in mathematics – preserving the major in math ed of course – it will hardly matter at all in the scheme of things. Comparing the CUs of our world to the elite wannabes is like comparing apples and oranges ... well, maybe it’s more like comparing doughnuts and oranges. Granted it would be quite awful for Wake Forest University – a university about a third of the size of ISU -- to scratch its philosophy major; it, nevertheless, may make perfect sense for ISU to do so.

  By the way, it is interesting to watch some of those schools like Western Michigan University and George Mason University making the transition from a CU to an elite wannabe. But ISU is apparently happy where it is.

  I cannot resist mentioning that, to my way of thinking, none of the realities suggested in my diatribe was addressed by the weary old men (and a few not-so-old women) on the Spellings’ Commission. Talk about going into a critically important endeavor wearing blinders ... well, don’t get me off on that.

  Anyway, as soon as Larry shouts “Amen,” you can chastise us both.

• Not just physics and philosophy
• Posted by Tom Steiger on February 8, 2007 at 3:51pm EST

• I, too, am a faculty member at ISU. But the report being discussed here should also include sociology. For there will not be a sociology major at ISU come Fall 07. I would like to know why that fact was left out of the report being discussed here. I'll ask it at the next Faculty Senate meeting.

  As much as I feel the pain of my colleagues in philosophy and physics, and I cannot speak for them (they are certainly capable of doing a good job of that for themselves), but the sociology dept cannot be sustained without additional faculty resources. To give you a sense, I joined the dept in 1987 and there were 14 sociologists then. We had a grad program and I, and three others were hired to flesh out a PhD program in social gerontology. Today we are but four.

  Physics, philosophy, and sociology did not get into these situations quickly or easily. And as heretical as it is to say, fingers cannot just be pointed at the administration. I cannot speak for others but I can speak from my experience in my department for nearly 20 years and we, the faculty, have contributed greatly to our situation today. Did we see it coming, no. Therein lies the fault of the administration (of which I have been a part).

  The bottom line is this, and my physics and philosophy colleagues can disagree with me if they like, but we, in sociology, need 3 more faculty to field our sociology major. We lost three faculty lines two years ago, and they are not going to be replaced. I suspect that philosophy needs additional faculty resources if they want to "grow" their major. Same with physics. If I understand things correctly, 60% of physics faculty resources are adjuncts. Would they turn down additional faculty?

  So, let's do a count. Sociology needs 3 to remain viable, let's give 3 to philosophy, and 3 to physics. That is 9 faculty lines, at $100,000 per line (total compensation), that is nearly $1 million needed. (yea, I know it isn't actually that high, so cut in half, arguement still stands) Should we cut the art department? business? who? Those of you out there who reify the university to ask is it a university without...., what would you cut? how much more would you increase tuition to fund those 9 lines?

  Lastly, where were all you hand wringers when these departments were struggling...yes, struggling. They didnt just spring forth in their current state. They have been struggling for a long time and no one said "hey, you can't have a quality sociology program when they don't have a sociologist that teaches in the area of the family." Well I did when serving as chair, but we were not given the line.

  Ouch, there goes another layer of enamel off my teeth.

• CUs and Quality Education
• Posted by anon-philo at ISU on February 8, 2007 at 5:36pm EST

• I can actually agree with a lot of what Frizbane says, the real mission and nature of a CU university is different from that of an "elite" university, or an "elite wannabee" but the truth is that CU universities can do a better or worse job of their mission anyway. Students don't primarily go to CU's for the education, but for a mixture of lots of other reasons you mention, but it is still our job to try to give them an education anyway, to the best extent we can, on the budgets we can. Likewise, we are partially beholden to the students and their tuition dollars, but partially also to the state and its tax dollars. The state is paying us to educate the students at CUs even if that isn't the main motive of most of the students at CUs. States pay CUs because they know that how well the elites are educated at "elite" universities matters to the state economy, but how well the non-elites are educated at the non-elite colleges matters too. Where Frizbane and I disagree is about what should and shouldn't be availible at a CU.

  On Sociology, its a sad loss to ISU as well, but it isn't in the Provost's report, and thats the topic of this article. Why isn't it in the Provost's report? Good question, ask it at the Senate, but I'd guess it was mostly because the Sociology faculty had already voted to eliminate the major before the Provost's report came out. Was the real fight a few years ago when Sociology didn't get the new lines it felt it needed? Probably that's what doomed Humanities in the end, too. Is there plenty of blame to go around between faculty and admin, and maybe even others? Probably, there usually is.

  Where would I cut if not here? That's a good question, and it is essentially the question of the Universities mission, which we danced around for 2 years of prioritization without ever facing squarely, and come the ICHE's August report everyone is going to have to face it. Is ISU really an elite research institution? Heck no, we can't compete with IU and Purdue. Are we an elite wannabee like Virginia Tech? No, we pretend we are to the statehouse sometimes, but they ain't buying it and neither are the students. If we're really a CU like Frizbane suggests then lets admit it. Notice he says that CU's have dorms, a Gen ed program, and "four-year programs with at least a few masters programs." If we can't cull the funds from some overblown rec center the state doesn't want, or from overspending on tech, or from the million we paid to the city to build their bus terminal for them for "town gown" reasons, or from the admin budget, which is still a pretty high admin-student ratio, then maybe we need to cut down the number of Ph. D.s or M.A.s we offer, and leave those jobs for the universities in our state that can make a creditible pass at being elite schools or elite wannabees. But hey that's just my opinion, I'm sure I'd get outvoted if I ever mentioned it in a more formal context than 34th comment on a blog.

• This Is It For me ... I Promise
• Posted by Frizbane Manley on February 8, 2007 at 8:11pm EST

• Thanks, anon-philo, for the kind words ... but please don’t jump to conclusions about my perspective. In fact, I imagine you and I DO NOT disagree “... about what should and shouldn’t be available at [ISU].”

  I happen to believe that every college or university – perhaps none more so than a community college – should have courses and programs in philosophy, sociology, and physics. I also happen to believe it would take a Ph.D. with a degree in Family Social Science and research interests in Assessment, Experiential Learning, and Institutional Distinctiveness and an Ed.D. with a degree in Education Administration and research interests in Accreditation, Professional Development, and Teacher Education Policy to fail to appreciate that perspective (see ...

  http://www.indstate.edu/news/REPORT/internal/cc/soefull.html

  but be sure to change all references to the University of Michigan to the University of Michigan at Flint).

  I am also impressed by Tom Steiger’s analysis that concludes with the conjecture that it would cost somewhat less than $1 million per year to assure majors in philosophy, physics, and sociology at Indiana State. My response, however, is “Is that all? What kind of academic ‘leaders’ do you have at ISU, the fourth or fifth largest school in the state, that can’t find a measly $1 million per annum to fund such basic programs?” Hell’s bells, an endowment of $10 million should do the trick in perpetuity. Isn’t Larry Bird an alumnus of Indiana State? Perhaps Peyton Manning would contribute the proceeds from one of his myriad commercials to the “Save Philosophy Fund.” Or are those guys the exclusive targets of the athletic department?

• Frizbane Manley
• Posted by Larry on February 9, 2007 at 4:25am EST

• At your suggestion I hereby shout "amen"

• The Real Issue
• Posted by Jaco on February 11, 2007 at 2:10pm EST

• Going back to the real issue cutting majors and departments. Why is ISU cutting Philosophy and Physics as degree granting departments? They claim that it is in response to accreditation concerns (under-enrolled programs). The ISU administration is selectively interpreting this to mean number of majors rather than students served. As was pointed out above Physics and Philosophy serve many, many non-majors with its courses a providing an efficient faculty:student ratio (IIRC philosophy, for example, was 24 students per faculty person). That's a much higher ratio than you will see for you average Gender Studies, Family Sciences and similar courses. Yet, ISU didn't cut those. Well why not?

  Let me suggest a couple of hypotheses. One, like at many universities certain departments have personel that certain administrators don't like. One obvious way of getting revenge at someone you don't like is to play games like dropping a major. I've been at universities (I am a prof though not at ISU and barely knowing anyone at ISU) where this is undoubtedly true. Second, no one is going to sue the university over dropping its Physics or Philosophy major; on the other hand, try dropping your Gender Studies or African-American Studies and see what happens (the university is said, maybe rightly, to be sexist, racist, etc.). Third, Family Sciences, Experiential Learning(!) and other programs are unlikely to be cut while one of their members sits in an adminstrative post (unless of course the adminstrator was "kicked upstairs" -- then watch out!). Finally, as one poster astutely recognized, what savings does ISU really get by eliminating a major in Philosophy or Physics? It depends on the institution. In many cases if you don't have a major then your department is either absorbed by another or it is outright eliminated. Either way, your department loses some of its funding. If its not eliminated watch to see where the department goes; some times it goes to areas where adminstrators thing there would be a good fit, other times where it would create inconvienience for the faculty. In the latter case the goal is to harass faculty enough to get them to leave. This is the only way administrators have a legitimate hope of elmiinating tenured faculty who don't engage in gross misconduct. If you harass them enough you get them to leave, and then either choose not to rehire or rehire at the lowest rank possible (to pay as little as possible). With fundamental core areas like philosophy and physics being relegated to what their role is at community colleges (and to the defense of many community colleges they'll have stronger programs than ISU's after the adminstration is done!) it's clear that the ISU adminstration is playing the "efficiency" game (in a stupid way) or is engaging in petty warfare.

  Oh finally, I can't comment about how much it costs to run a physics department but running a philosophy department is one of the absolutely cheapest departments you could have -- no technological/lab needs, no worry about faculty being hired away by the private sector, etc. So if you look carefully, I'd say there's a war being waged here.

• Why worry? Consume happy!
• Posted by Educated Immigrant on February 21, 2007 at 1:25pm EST

• No reason to worry, dear friends, I'm sure some Indian or Chinese university would be more than happy to provide additional physics
  majors to the US economy. And for the philosophy, who needs it in these transparently un-philosophical times, exemplified very well by our leaders' public discourse.

  ISU, in lemming-like fashion, just follows the trend.

• ISU Info Wanted
• Posted by just poking around on April 11, 2007 at 7:21pm EDT

• I have been looking for information on the ISU Printing Management Degree and have come up empty, both on the ISU site and on Google. Perhaps some of the local readers from Terre Haute can enlighten me as to whether this is one of the degree areas that has been dropped. The website doesn't contain a thing about it.

• Posted by Mark Branham on June 5, 2007 at 7:05pm EDT

• I make no pretense at objectivity on this topic. I graduated with physics majors in 76 and 78, when it was the highest rated program in the country for physics teachers. Since then and with the training in critical scientific thinking I recieved in the program. I have been able to work on thermonuclear weapons design and effects at Los Alamos, on ultra high powered lasers and very large optical systems for surveillance and reconnaissance functions for defense contractors. My compatriots have gone on to become captains of nuclear submarines and leaders at companies like Bechtel, professors at MIT and Notre Dame and so forth, all in all a pretty impressive group of leaders. As the loser of the bunch, I've had the pleasure of working on some of the best science toys on the planet and I doubt that would have been possible without the Physics Department. I thought it a shame when the Masters level degree program was discontinued, elimination of the program as a major reflects such a lack of value of intellectual discipline as to be unconscionable. This is a sad day for those who value true intellectual diversity and critical thinking in a University.

• Alumni Giving
• Posted by GLS , LM Fellow on June 22, 2007 at 8:20pm EDT

• Elimination of these degrees is disgusting. I'm inclined to cease my almuni contributions.