Today I read an opinion column in the NY Times by a U. of Tulsa professor who was the Dean of the Honors College until June. The professor discusses her thoughts on the decline of the liberal arts, and that it’s not actually based on student engagement and donors, but rather, the powers-that-be. Through her statement it led me to learn that @PresCarsonTulsa has stepped down (the press release termed it a retirement, but then indicated he would be leading two organizations related to policy around AI).
This is the [ETA: interim] president that has been named, effective June 18:
These are two quotes from the column that led me to investigate the administrative changes at Tulsa:
Sadly, this education has fared less well with my university’s new administration. After the former president and provost departed this year, the newly installed provost informed me that the Honors College must “go in a different direction.” That meant eliminating the entire dean’s office and associated staff positions as well as many of our distinctive programs and — through increased class sizes — effectively ending our small seminars. (A representative of the university told The Times that while it had “restructured” the Honors College, the university believes that academics and student experiences will “remain the same.”)
An unpleasant truth has emerged in Tulsa over the years. It’s not that traditional liberal learning is out of step with student demand. Instead, it’s out of step with the priorities, values and desires of a powerful board of trustees with no apparent commitment to liberal education, and an administrative class that won’t fight for the liberal arts even when it attracts both students and major financial gifts. The tragedy of the contemporary academy is that even when traditional liberal learning clearly wins with students and donors, it loses with those in power.
This may be an embittered faculty member (and member of what some might call administrative bloat), but considering how often U. of Tulsa comes up in discussions, particularly in relation to students who earn National Merit Finalist status, I thought the community would want to know.
It’s interesting that my D18’s Honors College (Utah) had a similar (though much less onerous) focus on required “intellectual traditions” courses. Something that is much more likely to appeal to donors and state officials in a red state, and very different to the sorts of general ed courses that are favored here in CA.
I also think this is the model that the University of Austin is using to promote itself. I don’t know the details but I wonder if the heavy focus on donor funding and free tuition for NMFs is no longer sustainable when the University of Austin has a much higher profile (and to be honest is in a much nicer city than Tulsa).
Bummer - he was a great salesperson for the university. I wonder if their NMF merit will change - how they afford all they give is beyond me. It’s a great opportunity for those kids.
The U of Austin isn’t an established school in the sense of Tulsa that has a rich history. Other than the cost - and yes $0 is enticing - I can’t imagine they pull from the same group of kids.
Historically, I believe Tulsa is similar to Furman (which is a safety for Duke) - I think Tulsa is a safety for Rice and SMU. Perhaps I’m wrong but that’s always been my perception.
The question is not whether they pull from the same group of kids, but whether they pull from the same group of donors. Tulsa’s model isn’t likely to be sustainable without continued strong fundraising to cover their scholarships.
Tulsa has a $1.3 nil endowment. It has investment grade bonds. It seems in line with a Lafayette and Bucknell.
While I’ll assume Mr Carson is liberal from his congressional days, the school did add some exposure to classical education as I recall the other year.
Are some of those who seeded U of Austin Tulsa donors ? I don’t know. But U of Austin would seem closer to Hillsdale (to me).
Interesting insight. I have never come across a student who applied to both Duke and to Furman.
Also am unfamiliar with U Tulsa being a safety for Rice & SMU applicants, but it certainly makes sense. And, the Fiske Guide To Colleges confirms that U Tulsa overlaps include both Rice & SMU..
I think that we will continue to see more of this. With declining pools of student applicant and the accompanying decline in revenue, disciplines with smaller classes due to low interest will be in the chopping block everywhere
I’m not sure I agree with the NY Times piece by Dr. Jennifer Frey. She describes that in University of Tulsa’s honors college (~25% of the student population) the students are eager learners who love to read and discuss the liberal arts both in class and out. She extrapolates from this that college students in general are eager for the liberal arts. I fully believe her honors students are this way; because of the full ride scholarships about 25% of UTulsa’s student body are National Merit Scholars. I’m not surprised National Merit Scholars display curiosity, hard work and a thirst for many subjects including liberal arts. But these top students are not representative of all students.
If people wanted the liberal arts, then the liberal arts would be growing, not declining….as majors….at least the non-STEM side which is what most are really alluding to.
We have to be careful about the terminology we use. I am not sure liberal arts majors are in decline. Chemistry, Biology, econ, and math (just to take a few examples), are all considered liberal arts. If instead you meant something else, like Humanities (english, history, etc.) and not Liberal Arts then you have to specify that.