Quick Takes: Pacific Oaks May Close, Urbana U. Cuts Salaries, Obama Suggests Infrastructure Support for (Public) Colleges, New Model Proposed for Medical Education, New Call for Visa Reforms, Merger Sought in Vermont, Western Washington Kills Football
With rumors swirling that the board of Pacific Oaks College could decide as early as today to close the institution, the president and board chair issued a statement late Thursday that may not reassure. The statement says that the college "is in a financial crisis due to falling enrollment," and that the credit crunch has made it difficult for some to enroll. Two years ago, according to the statement, "the board determined that the college was not sustainable," but decided to try to "correct the financial situation." Pacific Oaks, located in Pasadena, is known for its innovative teacher training programs. Many students, faculty members and alumni blame the college's leaders for the problems, and say that the board and president do not understand the college's mission. The Pacific Oaks SOS Web site outlines the critics' concerns. The college's board is holding a meeting today.
Urbana University, in Ohio, has told non-faculty employees that their salaries will be cut by 6 percent from January 16 through August 31, and that those with salaries of at least $75,000 will have their salaries cut by 10 percent, The Urbana Citizen reported. Faculty members' salary is governed by a contract that expires in May, but they are being asked to voluntarily agree to a 6 percent cut now. Officials cited budget deficits and concern about taking on more debt as reasons for the pay reductions.
As the federal government prepares to spend as much as $1 trillion to stimulate the economy, curiosity about how it will distribute the money is high, and would-be recipients are looking for signals. So it was not surprising that leaders in higher education -- which, like many sectors of society, hopes to benefit from the government's emergency largess -- were carefully dissecting President-elect Barack Obama's words as he delivered a speech about the economic situation Thursday at George Mason University. Many of them were pleased that the president-elect prominently mentioned investments in science and research as crucial, and some were concerned that he did not say anything at all about increasing financial support for students (although others said they've been hearing that Pell Grants could get a big boost in the stimulus package). But much of their attention was focused on one particular word Obama uttered. In a section on education, he said the government would provide "21st century classrooms, labs and libraries" and "new computers, new technology, and new training for teachers" for "tens of thousands of schools, community colleges, and public universities." The omission of infrastructure support for private colleges troubled some officials at those institutions, but officials of the new administration have reportedly been swayed by arguments that public institutions have seen their financial bases -- and, in turn, their literal physical bases -- eroded significantly in recent years.
John Garamendi, lieutenant governor of California and a University of California regent, has proposed a new model for medical education. The San Jose Mercury News reported that his plan would combine undergraduate and medical education in a five-year program, which would be the speediest transition from high school graduate to M.D. in the nation. Garamendi has proposed the concept for a new medical school at the University of California at Merced, itself a new institution. While some medical educators are applauding the idea, others question its viability.
Strict rules on granting visas to enter the United States and export controls for what leaves the U.S. are hindering research and the economy, and should change, according to a report issued Thursday by the National Academy of Sciences. The report says that too many rules were set up for the Cold War era and have never been adapted -- even as the nature of foreign threats and collaboration has changed. The panel that wrote the report was led by John Hennessy, president of Stanford University, and Brent Scowcroft, who was national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush. On visa issues, the report urges that the application process be changed to include skills-based preferential processing and streamlined so that legitimate foreign researchers and students have an easier time entering the United States. Student visas should be extended so that recent graduates have time to find work with U.S.-based employers, and qualified American scientists should be allowed to vouch for the technical credibility and legitimacy of visa applicants in their field as a means of aiding consular officials and expediting the application process, the report says.
Gov. James Douglas proposed Thursday that the University of Vermont and the Vermont State Colleges be merged, although he offered few concrete details, saying a study should determine those, The Times Argus reported.
Western Washington University announced Thursday that it will eliminate its football program, having found no other way to deal with a deficit in the athletics budget. The Associated Press reported that the move is being viewed as a blow to Division II football, which will now have only four teams in the West.
Comments on
Quick Takes: Pacific Oaks May Close, Urbana U. Cuts Salaries, Obama Suggests Infrastructure Support for (Public) Colleges, New Model Proposed for Medical Education, New Call for Visa Reforms, Merger Sought in Vermont, Western Washington Kills Football
Stimulus for Higher Ed
Posted
by Clarence
on January 9, 2009 at 7:05am EST
If my university is any measure, administrator's concerns about university infrastructure is the last thing they should be worried about getting included in the stimulus package. We are laying off adjuncts and lectures to preserve our infrastructure needs!!! Students need aid to get to and stay in school but it would be nice if people worried more about WHAT they were getting access too. What's the point of being at the university if you can't get the classes you need to graduate. Despite what university administrators say, there always seems to be a reason why budget increases (in the good times) never go to direct instruction and why cuts (in the bad times) always come from direct instruction. And the folks making these decisions are the same clowns always whining about why salaries over $200K aren't enough to compensate them for their heavy administrative responsibilities.
Clarence is Right
Posted
by jd
on January 9, 2009 at 9:45am EST
If there is going to be investment in higher ed as part of the stimulus, it ought to be targeted first at supporting students, next at converting adjunct positions to TT, then and only then to infrastructure.
The conversion of adjunct to TT may seem counter-intuitive, but it is a cheap investment in a stable future for institutions of higher learning, locking in talent at a time when colleges are going to need stability in order to offer students an actual education, rather than an empty certificate.
Clarence, et al are wrong
Posted
by Josh
on January 9, 2009 at 11:43am EST
Clarence and others are wrong -- infrastructure is what supports the research enterprise, which brings in funding and students. So infrastructure begets additional funding that offsets "base" funding used to support research startups and other costs. Short-term stimulus to build research facilities is helpful to jump-start us out of these doldrums, and then long-term investment in students and research will assist in continuing positive growth.
Regarding WWU and football -- my undergraduate school is in Division IA, and I'd love it if they got rid of the program -- it lost over $3 million each year when I was an undergraduate, and I don't think it's ever broken even.
Posted
by Simplex Scholasticus
on January 9, 2009 at 2:20pm EST
I'm afraid converting adjunct positions to TT is not a fiscally wise move in and of itself. The use of a certain percentage of adjuncts provides the cushion and flexibility a university needs to adapt to lean fiscal climates without cutting into the bone. Naturally we would all like to live in a world where all the faculty are TT/tenured, but a 75-25 or 80-20 split is an effective model.
As to football: only a few, something like 5%, of D-I athletic programs are in the black. Unless your name is Ohio State, you'd better not think you're going to make money directly through athletics. Sometimes the indirect institutional marketing value makes up for the direct losses. Sometimes not.
Simplex Scholasticus
Posted
by DFS
on January 9, 2009 at 4:50pm EST
is almost right. The ideal would be 90/10, even better at 95/5, or let's just go ahead and say it, 100/0.
Why not? Examine your first objections. Of course, you may say, we need some kind of 'cushion' for the institution, perhaps -- after all, shit happens.
Why? There's no need to invest yourself in regarding the university as some risky business to choose for a career, since there must be plenty of talent to go around -- that must have been the picture of your tenureship track you originally imagined -- otherwise, you wouldn't have invested your precious time (and, I'll be charitable here, your money), and your efforts, into pursuing this vocation.
Please. Just refrain from further loading us up with this.
Let us all laugh together: "I’m afraid converting adjunct positions to TT is not a fiscally wise move in and of itself. The use of a certain percentage of adjuncts provides the cushion and flexibility a university needs to adapt to lean fiscal climates without cutting into the bone."
In other words, 'My tenure does not obligate me for personal investment in the institution promulgating this unique and meritorious opportunity. It's the institution's problem -- not mine -- so I got mine, and it's mine, mine, mine!.'
"Naturally we would all like to live in a world where all the faculty are TT/tenured, but a 75-25 or 80-20 split is an effective model" -- for me, me me!
To my mind, all tenure (read: invested) personnel should absorb all oscillating teaching loads, whereby their teaching assistants (read: graduate assistants) would pick up their slack. And, we know that all of their slack should be the onus of TT's to present to labor laws which would modulate the number of these precious TT's.
Publish or perish? No -- do your job, or get replaced by someone who will do it.
And, what is "it?" It's not 'your' job, but the institution's. It does not 'belong' to you.
HIgher Ed stimulus
Posted
by Ken
on January 9, 2009 at 4:55pm EST
Research may (and I strongly say may) bring in some students as it helps to build the reputation of a school and may help build new facilities (eventually, maybe) but why the continuing dichotomy of teaching or research? You need to invest in both for either to succeed in the long run. Josh, I might argue that as many students are attracted by the football teams of an institution and they are to the research, if not more and we certainly would not argue for putting any econominc stimulus there?